Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Food Standards Bill

Mrs. Ray Michie: What discussions he has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the impact on Scottish retailers of the levy proposed under the draft food standards Bill. [76305]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): My right hon. Friend has had a number of discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding the nature and possible impact of the levy-raising powers proposed under the food standards Bill.
From 1 July, that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Mrs. Michie: Has the Minister's right hon. Friend made it clear that in Scotland we cannot agree to a flat-rate levy? Why should a little shop on the island of Lismore or Gigha in my constituency pay the same as a large, wealthy supermarket? Will the Minister confirm that the Scottish Parliament will be able to reject that "poll tax on the plate" and agree that the Food Standards Agency should be paid for out of general taxation?

Mr. Galbraith: The current levy scheme proposals are part of genuine consultation, and I have been touring the country having open meetings with interested parties. We shall certainly be happy to consider alternatives, provided they are administratively simple, cost-effective and fair, and we are actively encouraging such alternative proposals.

Mr. David Stewart: My hon. Friend will be aware that we inherited

a crisis of confidence in food, following the E. coli outbreak in central Scotland in 1996 and 1997, when 21 people tragically died. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give the Scottish people that such tragedies will not occur in future?

Mr. Galbraith: As my hon. Friend will know, we have made considerable progress on food safety over the past two years. We have implemented almost all Professor Pennington's recommendations, with significant objective improvements so far. I have no doubt that, although the agency will not absolutely guarantee that there will be no more problems, it will significantly reduce them and reassure people throughout the United Kingdom of the safety and wholesomeness of our food.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister accept that there is a strong, indeed unanswerable, case for locating the Scottish arm of the Food Standards Agency in the north-east of Scotland, given the unique combination of its research base and agricultural production areas? Should that not be part of a widespread plan for civil service dispersal across Scotland?
Did I detect from the Minister's earlier answer that the Government are moving away from the ridiculous argument that a branch of Sainsbury's should pay the same as a corner shop, and that they would consider a banded system that would be fair to all retailers?

Mr. Galbraith: As I toured the country, discussing this matter with interested parties, I noticed that, everywhere I went, everyone asked for the Scottish arm of the agency to be based in their area. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's presentation as a plea for his area, and duly note it.

Dr. Liam Fox: Further to the Minister's answer, will the Scottish Parliament have the power, under the Scotland Act 1998, to overrule, compensate for or alter any levy that is set by the Treasury, or will the Treasury dictate policy in Scotland?

Mr. Galbraith: Detailed effects of devolution on that policy area are still being considered, although we intend the levy to apply consistently in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Dr. Fox: If the levy is to apply consistently in all parts of the United Kingdom, that makes nonsense of the Minister's earlier answer to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). Is it not clear that the Treasury will still dictate policy on that matter and that the measure will be another part of the Government's stealth tax programme which will be imposed on Scottish retailers? Are the Government not therefore hypocritical to criticise other parties for wanting to use the tax-raising powers that the Government campaigned for and included in the Scotland Act, when they are raising taxes by stealth from Scottish retailers at every turn?

Mr. Galbraith: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the matter, as he made obvious by trying to draw false conclusions from my response to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. As I said, we aim to ensure that the levy is uniform across


the United Kingdom because it is correct and proper for a UK agency to be concerned with food throughout the country.

Literacy and Numeracy

Miss Anne Begg: If he will make a statement on the Government's strategy to improve literacy and numeracy in Scottish schools. [76307]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): The Government have a comprehensive strategy for improving literacy and numeracy. That includes the early intervention programme for which £60 million is being provided, family literacy schemes supported by £15 million over three years, and £7.8 million of additional resources made available this year alone to allow every school in Scotland to buy books for its library. Those initiatives are being underpinned by action to improve teaching standards and by setting targets for raising attainment in literacy and numeracy.
From 1 July, that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Miss Begg: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. As a former English teacher, I know all too well the importance of early intervention schemes. As a secondary schoolteacher, I certainly found that it was often too late to help youngsters who could not read or write at age 11. Will my right hon. Friend break down those figures and tell the House how much is likely to be spent in Aberdeen—which obviously is my concern—in pursuing that valuable policy over the next few years?

Mr. Dewar: I can tell my hon. Friend that, of the £7.8 million for school books during this financial year, about £272,000 will go to schools in the Aberdeen city council area. To take her point a little more broadly, in the first two years of the early intervention programme, Aberdeen city council received more than £226,000 of Government funding, and in the three years to 2001–02 it will receive more than £455,000 annually; so, over that five-year period of the early intervention scheme, the programme for Aberdeen will amount to £1,820,000. That is part of a pattern, which will mean that, by the end of the comprehensive spending review period, for every family in Scotland about £14,000 will have been spent on health and education.

Sir Robert Smith: We welcome the focus on the problems of literacy and numeracy. Given that almost £10 million have disappeared from school education in the north-east of Scotland—in Aberdeen city, Aberdeenshire and Moray—the figures cited by the Secretary of State will go some way towards repairing the damage. However, when people think about their children's education, they consider the overall education. Does the Secretary of State accept that considerable damage has been done by the past two years of cuts?

Mr. Dewar: No doubt that is something that the hon. Gentleman will want to discuss with his local authority. I may soon have an opportunity of doing so myself. I expect that the hon. Gentleman will want to welcome—although, strangely, he forgot to do so—the 4.7 per cent.

increase in the settlement for local government in the coming year. It is the best for seven years, and it is part of an increasing programme which, step by step, will build up to the better standards to which I referred in my earlier answer.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Does the Secretary of State not find it fantastic that Opposition Members do not seem to look seriously at the Government's spending, and do not seem to have spoken to their local authorities? I have a table supplied by my local authority, which shows that Falkirk is getting £187,000 in early intervention funding, and a total of £2,600,000 extra for nine projects that will develop literacy, numeracy and education. Next year, the figure will be £2 million, followed by a further £1.8 million. Does my right hon. Friend find, as I do, that, whenever he speaks to local authority members, they tell him that local authorities are awash with money and the schemes are making a real difference to the literacy, numeracy and educational opportunities of the people of Scotland?

Mr. Dewar: I certainly believe that anyone who listens to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and looks at the settlement for the coming year will recognise that the rather mean and penny-pinching approach of Opposition Members, who will always find something about which to carp and criticise, is totally unjustified. If hon. Members examine the education budget—the figures are well known to the House—and the increase in cash terms from 1997–98 to the end of the comprehensive spending review, they will see that, in the last year of that period, we will be spending £1 billion more on education than we were spending in the first year of this Labour Government. That is exactly the upward curve that people expect and want, and for which they voted in the past and, I expect, will vote again.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: In the light of that answer, will the Secretary of State tell us whether the total decrease of £219 million so far in real terms in the education budget is part of his comprehensive strategy to improve literacy, or merely an oversight?

Mr. Dewar: That is a bitter attack on the spending plans of the Conservative Government. We said before the election and during the election campaign that, for the first two years of our period in office, we would hold to the overall spending plans that we inherited from the hon. Gentleman's friends. That is what we did, and we never made any secret of it. Within that total, we reallocated in favour of schools and health—for schools, more than £100 million. We said that, after that two years, we would start building. We are now building, with substantial increases in real terms in health and education, and moving towards totals such as those that I mentioned earlier.
It does not matter to what extent the hon. Gentleman dances on the head of a pin—he will find it a very uncomfortable experience electorally. No matter how determinedly he does it, he is simply trying to misrepresent the situation.

New College, Kilwinning

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: When he plans to conclude the contract for the new college in Kilwinning. [76308]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I am not a party to the contract for the new college in Kilwinning. The board of management of James Watt college of further and higher education will sign the contract, and I understand that it expects to do so soon.
From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Donohoe: That is excellent news. Does my right hon. Friend agree that access is one of the biggest problems in higher education, particularly for the handicapped and the disabled? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, by virtue of the Scottish National party's policies, people are likely to be deprived of access to higher education in north Ayrshire, and the building of the new college in Kilwinning would, at the very least, be delayed, if not cancelled, were its policies to come to fruition?

Mr. Dewar: Kilwinning college is an important addition to the educational facilities in north Ayrshire, and I hope that it flourishes and does well. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the importance of widening access. We have an agenda in that area, and I can announce today that disabled student allowances will be extended from this autumn to part-time students studying at least 50 per cent. of a full-time course. Furthermore, the fee waiver scheme introduced last May for low-income or unemployed part-time first degree students will be extended to include students at higher education institutions on higher national certificate or higher national diploma courses. Steps will also be taken to introduce consistency for comparable students in further education colleges.
That means that £6 million will be channelled to benefit at least 6,000 part-time higher education students a year who are on low incomes or unemployed, and £1.5 million to benefit 250 disabled students each year during the next three years. That is an important and welcome extension of access for a group of students who have potential and capacity, but are often held back by personal circumstances.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is the new college in Kilwinning also likely to be awash with money, or will it be constrained at least by the fact that in Ayrshire there has been a reduction in the education budget of as much as 15 per cent?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have a slight rapport—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because he is always extremely entertaining. As the hon. Gentleman has no doubt done his homework, he will know that an additional £41 million has been allocated to the further education sector next year, which has been very widely welcomed—I use these terms properly—right across the further education sector. There will be something like £241 million, in addition to the expected plans, by the end of the comprehensive spending review. The hon. Gentleman has struck a happy note in reminding me just how much is being done in further education at the moment.

Education (Parental Involvement)

Mr. Russell Brown: What plans he has to increase parental involvement within the Scottish education system. [76309]

The Minister for Education, Scottish Office (Mrs. Helen Liddell): Parental involvement in children's education is crucial if young people are to realise their potential. Our plans for increasing parental involvement in the Scottish education system are set out in our recent White Paper "Targeting Excellence: Modernising Scotland's Schools", which was published on 27 January.
From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer and for her recent visit to Dumfries, when she met educationists and discussed the White Paper, which I believe was well received.
My hon. Friend is fully aware of the excellent parental involvement in Maxwelltown high school in Dumfries, which is taking forward the whole concept of community schools and, despite not having achieved any additional funding as a pilot community school, the parents are continuing to work hard within the school and the community. Will my hon. Friend offer support for that project and pay the school a visit when the opportunity arises?

Mrs. Liddell: I very much enjoyed my visit to Dumfries some 10 days ago. If I have an opportunity, I should like to visit Maxwelltown because I know of the project undertaken there under the parents' guidance. My hon. Friend is aware that there are to be 60 pilots of new community schools, an exciting new development in Scottish education which puts the child at the heart of the education system. We are the only party that refers to education in relation to its impact on children. Before the end of this month, I plan to announce our decisions on the new community school plans, and I know that Maxwelltown high school has made a bid to be a new community school.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On Monday, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced plans to assist highly able children in England and Wales, and we all know how the parents of those children want more to be done for them. What are the Government's plans for highly able children in Scotland, and how will Scottish Office Ministers respond to the criticisms of the half-baked scheme that has come from their colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that the Scottish education system is significantly different from that in England and Wales. He asks about able children. The new advanced higher—which is part of the reforms, known as higher still, that are being introduced from August—is specifically aimed at encouraging able young people in our schools. It will also assist those of all levels of ability to maximise their ability fully. That, together with the £1.3 billion extra that is being put into our schools through the comprehensive spending review, will help not only the very able, but all young people who benefit from a good Scottish education.

Scottish Beef Exports

Mr. John Home Robertson: If he will make a statement on progress towards the reopening of the export market for Scottish beef. [76310]

Mr. Tim Boswell: If EU inspectors have been invited to Scottish farms since the lifting of the beef export ban was announced. [76313]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Substantial progress has been made since the principles of the date-based export scheme were agreed in Brussels last November. The Government's chief veterinary officer has invited European Union inspectors to visit the United Kingdom in the week beginning Monday 12 April to assess our plans for implementing the date-based export scheme. I remain optimistic that Scottish beef can begin to regain its rightful place in the export trade in the course of this summer.

Mr. Home Robertson: We have come a long way since the ridiculous beef war in which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) tried to play the role of the neighbour from hell in the European Union. Now that the Labour Government have implemented all the requirements of the Florence agreement—step by step and without any need for extra taxation in Scotland to pay for it—will my right hon. Friend make leading Scottish beef back into the export market in June a priority for the Labour Administration in the Scottish Parliament? As First Minister in the Scottish Parliament, would he like to arrange a Scottish beef barbecue in Brussels to celebrate?

Mr. Dewar: I am not a great barbecue man myself, but, on this occasion and following such a beguiling invitation, I might reconsider my position.
I am encouraged by the fact that progress has been made, and that can be traced directly to the feeling across the European Union that, under this Government, the United Kingdom is involved and pulling its weight. We still have many disagreements, but at least we are involved and there is a feeling that we are prepared to talk and do business. That has resulted in the progress that we have achieved.
It is difficult to move from the agreement in principle through to the practical reassertion of Scottish beef's proper place in the European market, but I am glad that my ministerial colleague, my noble Friend Lord Sewel, was encouraged by his reception when he visited northern Italy only a couple of weeks ago and talked to people involved in what had been an important export market. I hope that we can build on his visit and on the other steps that we are taking, in close co-operation with the National Farmers Union of Scotland.

Mr. Boswell: Given the size and importance of the beef industry in Scotland and given that BSE has always run at a lower level in Scotland than in the rest of Great Britain, is the Secretary of State not rather surprised that, several months after the Prime Minister declared the end of the beef war with a flourish, the inspectors are not coming to Scotland for a further three weeks? There are direct flights, I believe. However, not a single tonne of Scottish beef is available for export to Europe.

Mr. Dewar: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that ungracious attitude, because he is often rather knowledgeable and reasonable in this area. We have never pretended that the agreement in principle on the date-based export scheme meant that we could immediately restart exporting. Clearly, there had to be tracing and slaughtering of offspring of all BSE cases born after 1 August 1996, and a completely new database had to be erected to establish eligibility checks. There was a great deal of work to be done, and it is being pushed on with considerable energy.
I have kept closely in touch with the National Farmers Union of Scotland. I welcome the fact that the chief veterinary officer has been able to arrange for 12 April a visit by the inspectorate from the European Union, and I hope that that goes well. However, the idea that, if we had just raised an air fare, the whole thing could have been settled four months ago not only defies imagination, but is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the progress that has been made and wish the Secretary of State success, but he will recognise that it will take a long time to build that export market again. Might one of the disagreements between the Scottish farmer and Europe be its possible introduction of a permanent ban on beef on the bone?

Mr. Dewar: No, that was not one of the areas to which I referred. The beef-on-the-bone ban is in place because of the very clear medical and scientific advice that has been offered to the Government of the United Kingdom. I need hardly say that, if that advice changed, or if the very clear indications of an element of risk were removed, we would be happy to see the end of the ban.

Dr. Liam Fox: I welcome any progress in the beef industry, but, given the fact that the Secretary of State has basically told us that not a single carcase has yet been exported from Scotland, despite all the rhetoric, how many slaughterhouses does he expect to be approved by the end of April? If the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) is right in saying that the Scottish Office is awash with money, could the Secretary of State perhaps use some more of it to alleviate the suffering of those in the agriculture sector in Scotland?

Mr. Dewar: I never cease to marvel at the hon. Gentleman's courage. Against the background of the record of the last Conservative Government and his record in the business, he criticises us. It is a little too much. I cannot predict what will happen, because it depends on the visit on 12 April. I hope that that goes well and that we can satisfy the European Union inspectorate that such a move is part of the necessary process. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has said, it is a slow business. We have always known that, but we are ensuring that every possible step is taken as quickly as possible. We are spending a lot of time and taking a lot of trouble to re-establish the contacts that will be necessary if we are to get our beef back into the European market. The results of those contacts are, on the whole, encouraging. A little support and backing from the Opposition, who constantly declare their interest in helping, would be appreciated.

Trunk Roads Review

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What progress has been made on the trunk roads review; and if he will make a statement. [76311]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): Some useful suggestions were made during the recent public consultation. We are amending the framework for the appraisal of trunk road investment in Scotland to reflect those. The outcome of the review will be announced as soon as practicable.
From 1 July 1999, it will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Morgan: Is the Minister aware that P and O has recently announced an order for a new conventional ferry for the Cairnryan-Larne route, which will have almost double the capacity of existing conventional ferries? Is he aware that there is the potential for 100-plus lorries to come ashore at Cairnryan and that that will add severely to the problems of the lorry convoy on the A75 and the accident rate? Will he undertake to take that new fact into account in the trunk roads review?

Mr. Macdonald: That is an important announcement by P and O. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome it. The A75 as such is not part of the trunk roads review, but it is welcome news for the hon. Gentleman, because it means that we are able to go ahead with improvements that are planned, for example, in Glen. I hope to announce shortly that the money will be available to complete those improvements by the summer. The route action plan that we are working on for the whole of the A75 is still being developed, but, when that is completed, it will provide the basis for future investment on the A75.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: What consultations has the Minister had with his English colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the proposals that they are considering to detrunk the English sections of the A7 and A68? Can he give the communities on the Scottish side of the border that are served by both those roads an assurance that any detrunking on the English side will not lead to a diminution in repair and maintenance and, indeed, in road improvement schemes for those two roads? Does he accept that, if he is not careful and gets past 12 July, difficult decisions may be left to someone else?

Mr. Macdonald: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance about the detrunking proposals. Having been in direct contact with DETR, he will know that the proposals are part of a wider proposal relating to England as a whole, allowing responsibility for trunk road maintenance to be shared by DETR and groups of local authorities in the regions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this will not have the impact that he and his constituents fear.

Local Government Finance

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: When he last met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the local government settlement for 1999–2000. [76312]

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): My right hon. Friend and I last met the convention on 22 January to discuss the terms of the 1999–2000 local government finance settlement.
From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Mrs. McKenna: Will my hon. Friend wish COSLA well before it begins its annual conference later this week in Crieff?
As my hon. Friend will know, local government spending on vital services in Scotland has increased dramatically under the new Labour Government. Do the figures not give the lie to the fantasy statistics produced by the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party, which suggest that spending is lower under this Government than under the Tory Government? Are we not, step by step, delivering for Scotland?

Mr. McLeish: I am pleased to say that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will visit Crieff this week to address the COSLA conference.
My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the local government settlement for 1999–2000, and up to 2001, is substantial. We are securing vastly improved services, and an injection of an extra £840 million, including additional resources for pre-school education. In 1997, the Conservatives increased the band D council tax by 10.7 per cent.; we halved that last year, and this year it will be only 2.6 per cent. We are securing better services, lower council tax increases and improved quality of life in every part of Scotland.

Mr. James Wallace: I acknowledge and, indeed, welcome the fact that the local government settlement is going up this year and in the forthcoming year, after seven years in which it has been reduced in terms of 1998–99 prices, and is scheduled to go up again in each of the succeeding two years.
By the same token, will the Minister acknowledge and, indeed, regret the fact that, over the last five years of the Conservative Government and the first five years of the current Labour Government, the average spend for local government is £460 million per annum less in real terms? Like me, the Minister has often criticised the Conservative party for the impact that its spending plans had on local government. What impact does he expect this settlement to have, given that in real terms—in terms of buying power—it is 5 per cent. lower than what the Conservative party was spending each year?

Mr. McLeish: My constituents, and all the other constituents in Scotland, are less interested in arbitrary bartering of statistics than in hard investment in education and every other aspect of local government. It is possible to make any comparison by selecting a figure out of thin air, but the hard reality is that we said, "Education,


education, education," and that in every council there is real investment, especially in services for the under-fives. That is what ordinary constituents want, and that is what a Labour Government are delivering.

Mr. John McAllion: Given that the local government settlement is part of a four-year budget for the Scottish Parliament, has my hon. Friend discussed with COSLA the SNP's strange proposal to cut £1,000 million from that budget, add £690 million back in, and then claim still to be spending more, rather than less, on services? Has my hon. Friend considered asking COSLA whether it would be possible to send the SNP spokespeople back to school to learn how to do their sums? Does he agree that not since 1707 have we seen such a parcel of dopes in the nation?

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend has made a remarkably good contribution—but, if we sent members of the SNP back to school, there would be very few computers in the classroom to deal with their problems.
What the SNP is offering is a national disgrace. The Labour Government are investing in every part of education, but all that the SNP can do is continue to hoodwink the electors. How can those with a policy of breaking up Britain be interested in any other aspect of public services?

Mr. John Swinney: Has the Minister discussed with COSLA the contents of a parliamentary answer that he gave last week to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), which stated that, since Labour came to power, £750 million has been cut from local authorities' budgets? Is the Minister aware of the real damage that the cut does to public services, or does he—like the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty)—believe that local authorities are awash with resources? If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) believes that anyone requires to go back to school, does he believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who has had to do a superb U-turn on the ridiculous figures that he published seven days ago—should go back to school, to learn how £230 million really does not mean £500 million?

Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman is simply struggling. We are talking about real investment of £840 million over the next three years, and he cannot argue against the facts. In every school in Scotland, and in every service in Scotland, there will be more cash. It is absurd for the SNP to pretend that there is anything that it can do to improve the quality of life in Scotland. However, if the SNP gets anyone to vote for it, it will be about breaking up Britain—and divorce is very expensive.

Mr. George Galloway: Did the local authorities laugh when faced with the economic illiteracy of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats—who are now in alliance, and who voted last week to take £1 billion out of public spending, thereby lining themselves up with every opportunist tax-cutting argument? At the same time, they pretend that with 1p—the longest "p" in history—they will be able to rebuild Scotland's public services, which were run down over 18 years of Thatcherite Government. Will not anyone

with eyes to see be able to understand that a country that has been systematically run down can be rebuilt only step by step, as the Labour Government are doing?

Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend adds to the other excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). It is a tragedy to see the SNP seeking to cut investment in Scotland, at a time when we are spending. As for education, there will be a 6.4 per cent. increase next year; a 4.4 per cent. increase in 2000–01; and a further 4 per cent. in 2001–02. That is about investing in Scotland's future. The Labour Government will continue to do that, despite the fact that the SNP is walking away from reality and the needs of Scotland.

Inward Investment

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the current levels of inward investment to Scotland. [76315]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): In the year to March 1998, Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office helped to attract to Scotland a total of 87 inward investment projects, involving planned investment of just over £1 billion and the expected creation or safeguarding of nearly 18,000 jobs. The jobs figure is at a higher level than at any time in Locate in Scotland's 18-year history.

Mr. Winterton: Does the Secretary of State agree that, under the previous Conservative Government, inward investment in Scotland was absolutely massive? Does he agree also that, under a Labour Government, unemployment is going up in Scotland; that, this month, it is likely to be up for the third month running; and that, this year alone, more than 4,000 jobs have been lost in Scotland? Does he believe that the Chancellor's Budget—which penalises lower-income and less well-off families in Scotland—will help? Does he believe that the SNP's raising taxes by 1p more than in the rest of United Kingdom would not have an adverse affect on smaller business?

Mr. Dewar: I have just explained that Locate in Scotland has had a record year. I hope that that success will continue. I pay tribute to the contribution that inward investment has made to management skills and to broadening the base of the economy. It accounts for 29 per cent. of employment in manufacturing industry. I hope that there will be further good news on inward investment shortly.
The hon. Gentleman is being selective about unemployment. At 5.5 per cent., the claimant count is at its lowest for about 20 years. Youth unemployment has almost halved. Unemployment in many constituencies in Scotland is very much lower than it was in February 1996, when I think the Conservatives were in office. To take a random example, in Banff and Buchan, unemployment fell by 42 per cent. between February 1996 and February 1999. That trend is true for all the constituencies represented by the Scottish National party. I am very happy to recognise that and say how satisfactory it is. We want to continue that record, not go back to the days of the Conservative Government.

Mr. David Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Locate in Scotland and


Scottish Enterprise have an excellent record in attracting many thousands of jobs to Scotland and are the envy of the rest of the United Kingdom and most of Europe? Does he further agree that it would be disastrous for jobs in Scotland if there were any chance of the changes to Locate in Scotland suggested by the SNP—which would undermine its effectiveness—being implemented?

Mr. Dewar: I understand that the SNP is advocating that Locate in Scotland should be taken into the civil service and should be answerable directly to Ministers. That is what has been reported to me. If it is not true, no doubt I shall be told. That is a remarkably centralising policy that would result in the input of business and commerce in the form of the Scottish Enterprise board being lost. I understand that the Scottish nationalists are also proposing that a majority of those in the local enterprise companies should be Members of the Scottish Parliament or local authority elected members. There should be a proper partnership, using the experience and entrepreneurial skills of Scottish industry, not the centralised arrangements that the SNP proposes. My hon. Friend is right to point to the success of Locate in Scotland. We are anxious for that success to continue.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the whole House will congratulate Locate in Scotland on its excellent figures last year. Has the Secretary of State noticed that unemployment continued to go down rapidly when the Government came to power, before they had changed any of the Conservative Government's policies? Has he also noticed that unemployment has gone up in Scotland in the past three months? If he has not noticed that, he ought to. What does he propose to do about the fact that jobs and investment are moving away from Scotland? He cannot just rely on a good Conservative record.

Mr. Dewar: Another badge for courage, I think. I repeat that there has been a substantial drop in unemployment since the Conservatives were in power three years ago. The record of creating and attracting jobs in Scotland since we came to power greatly outweighs the job losses. Of course there is some uncertainty about whether all the jobs that have been promised will appear, but even taking into account the National Audit Office's recommendation of discounting by a third, the balance is still on the right side. Jeremiahs are always to be found on the Opposition Benches, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is making a profession of it.

Educational Opportunities

Mr. Dennis Canavan: What initiatives he is proposing to improve educational opportunities. [76316]

The Minister for Education, Scottish Office (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government's plans for improving pre-school and school education were set out in our White Paper, "Targeting Excellence: Modernising Scotland's Schools", which was published on 27 January. Our plans for post-16 education and training were set out in our Green Paper, "Opportunity Scotland", published in September 1998.
After 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Canavan: Is my hon. Friend aware that many parents, teachers and students are looking forward to the new Scottish Parliament with a new Scottish Education Minister, whose priorities will, they hope, be determined by the people of Scotland rather than by the political establishment in this place, which imposed tuition fees and scrapped grants even for students from low-income families? If my right hon. Friend survives the plot to stop her becoming Secretary of State for Scotland, will she remember that it is not the job of politicians to tell teachers how to teach? Will she please not give in to the temptation to go strutting round Scotland hectoring and handbagging Scottish teachers like some new Labour version of Margaret Thatcher?

Mrs. Liddell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that I visited the town of Falkirk, which he represents, to break the ground in the first of five new schools that have opened in Falkirk as a result of Government investment. I look forward to the future Education Minister in the Scottish Parliament continuing the work that the Government have begun—work that has resulted in £40 million going to the Falkirk further education college. I am totally confident that a new Labour Education Minister in the Scottish Parliament will continue the Government's work in raising standards and quality in Scottish schools to make Scottish education once again among the best in the world and provide an education system based on the needs of our pupils.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Minister of State was asked—

Community Legal Service

Mr. David Kidney: How the community legal service will be accountable to (a) Parliament and (b) the public. [76335]

The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The community legal service will be administered by the Legal Services Commission. As a non-departmental public body, the commission will be accountable to Parliament through Ministers. The commission's annual plan, setting out how it intends to carry out its functions, and its annual report, setting out how it has delivered against the plan, will be laid before Parliament and published. The commission's accounts will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and its accounting officer will be answerable to the Public Accounts Committee. The commission will, therefore, be accountable to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the public.

Mr. Kidney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the community legal service offers the exciting prospect of a modern legal service that is available to all for the next century? That ambition is as fitting for the new world of the 21st century as the ambition doubtless felt by the Labour Members who established the legal aid service for the post-war world. Does my hon. Friend further agree


that if the community legal service is to be a success, it is essential that Parliament and the public are guaranteed reliable standards of quality, funding and accessibility?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Government set out in their election manifesto, on which we were both elected, their determination to create a community legal service. A great deal of work has already been done, establishing partnerships with local authorities and other funders to ensure that we have a comprehensive system of legal advice, helping those most in need and spending taxpayers' money as effectively as we possibly can.

Mr. John Burnett: I did not know that the community legal service was to be available for all and I welcome any comments that the Minister of State may have on that point. The Government have stated that they intend to withdraw legal aid from all personal injury actions. Does that mean that in future legal aid will not be available for important personal injury cases with a public interest element, such as the successful claims for asbestosis and white finger? Furthermore, will the Minister of State confirm whether his Department will be issuing a paper on the cost and availability of insurance for defendants' costs in conditional fee agreements and, if so, when that paper will be issued?

Mr. Hoon: As regards the hon. Gentleman's point about public interest, the Department recently published a document on the funding code, which is the technical measure that solicitors will use to determine whether legal aid should be granted in particular cases. It sets out clearly our intention that public interest cases should continue to be supported, and cases such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman should continue to receive funding provided that they satisfy the criteria of public interest merit. As for the insurance industry, I am confident that it will continue to provide a dynamic and successful system for funding conditional fee cases. I am not aware of any particular necessity that such cases should be subject to any form of Government oversight or regulation.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Will my hon. Friend comment further on the role of local authorities in achieving partnership? I was pleased that the Lord Chancellor announced last week that Plymouth city council was to be among the 40 local authorities with associate pioneer status. I believe that local authorities have a role to play in achieving accountability, and I would welcome my hon. Friend's comments on that.

Mr. Hoon: It is important that the community legal service is comprehensive, involving all those who are at present financing the unco-ordinated advice services that are available. That is why we announced six full pioneer areas and, as my hon. Friend says, a further 40 associate pioneer areas, where we will be able specifically to develop the comprehensive service that we believe is essential to a community legal service.

Mr. Edward Garnier: How can the community legal service be accountable to anybody when the Government's plans may not leave it with any money?

Why will not the Minister give the service a separate ring-fenced budget, instead of forcing it to beg for what is left after the public funding of criminal cases?

Mr. Hoon: The whole point of the Government's reforms to legal aid is to replace the present unplanned system of spending—which is entirely demand led and cannot be controlled year in, year out—with a system of planning, so we allocate resources to need. That system of planning will mean that there should not be an overspend year on year, and that there always should be sufficient funds available to the community legal service.

Pro Bono Work

Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will set minimum requirements for pro bono work as a qualification for appointment to Queen' s Counsel status. [76336]

The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): My right honourable and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has no plans to set minimum requirements for pro bono work as a qualification for appointment to the rank of Queen's Counsel. A commitment to pro bono work is, however, taken into account when considering Queen's Counsel applications.

Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at the very least, it would be appropriate for QCs to spend some time on pro bono work, bearing in mind the fact that they earn up to £500,000 even before they are appointed as QCs? Does not the fact that the QC system has, so far, signally failed to provide pro bono work indicate a wider, symptomatic problem? Is not the QC system an anachronistic restrictive practice which does not work in the public interest and should be scrapped?

Mr. Hoon: As I said, a commitment to do pro bono work is taken into account when considering applications for QC status. The Government recognise the contribution that the process of appointing QCs has played in selecting senior lawyers. There are no present plans to review that.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister concede that if pro bono work is to be taken into account as a consideration in deciding whether a barrister should become a QC, such a stipulation should apply also to Members of Parliament who are barristers, and who hitherto have become QCs, as I understand it, as of right?

Mr. Hoon: I am not aware that that is the case.

Dr. Lynda Clark: Has the Minister any idea, by way of a survey or otherwise, of the amount of pro bono work done by QCs—both as QCs and prior to becoming QCs? I can speak only for Scotland, where my contemporaries and I have done vast amounts of pro bono work in our time.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that information. The matter is taken into account in considering applications for QC status.

County Courts

Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the role of county courts in serving their local communities. [76337]

The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The location of county courts has historically reflected the business needs of the people in the immediate areas that they serve. As technology and communications advance, however, we will consider how services can be more economically and efficiently provided without affecting the level of service offered.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful for that response, but the Minister could have gone further and recognised the enormous quantity of family and other work done by the county courts, which is of great importance in the local community. He is aware of concern in the courts surrounding Greater Manchester about proposed closure and relocation, and of my concern that the local function of courts should be taken into account. In that connection, will he give a commitment that where there are other court facilities that are under-utilised—I am thinking here of the Sale magistrates courts—those facilities will be looked at prior to any new-build options in the centre of Manchester?

Mr. Hoon: It is important to draw a distinction between the times when people need to go to court for a case, when we must clearly take into account the distance that they have to travel—although that is quite rare because, fortunately, most people do not need to go to court repeatedly—and the function of the court service in providing information, which can be much more effectively delivered locally by telephone, fax or modern technology. To make that appropriate distinction will be to the benefit of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, allowing us to use the court estate as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend is a sensible fellow, and I know that he will bear it in mind that there is absolutely no point in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions asking people not to move important state facilities away from where people live and work if, at the same time, individual Whitehall Departments take decisions on a narrow economic basis. If he will undertake to bear that in mind before any more county courts are closed, we will all be a little happier.

Mr. Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that we will take that into account. Let me repeat that it is important to distinguish between the relatively rare occasions when people go to court for cases, and the provision of information. We need to ensure that much more information is provided locally and that we use modern technology to deliver it much more efficiently than at present.

Magistrates Courts

Mr. Norman Baker: What assessment he makes of the (a) environmental implications and (b) inconvenience to individuals, in reaching decisions on appeals against closure of magistrates courts. [76338]

The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Environmental issues and accessibility are certainly taken into account, but they cannot be overriding considerations. Other themes that are common to the majority of appeals against courthouse closures include accessibility to all court users; the facilities available; the cost of necessary renovations to bring the court up to standard; and courtroom use. Each appeal is considered on the merits of the arguments presented by the parties. There are no statutory criteria.

Mr. Baker: Is the Minister aware that the court service proposes to close the magistrates court at Haywards Heath, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), which serves my constituents? That will require my constituents from Wivelsfield to go to the court in Lewes, where there is no proper public transport connection, and those from Ditchling to go to Brighton. Should not justice be accessible to all? The closure, if it goes ahead, will lead to considerable inconvenience to my constituents.

Mr. Hoon: The court service is not responsible for the provision of magistrates courts, which are the responsibility of the magistrates courts committee. An appeal against that proposed closure might, eventually, be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor. I have had substantial—even weighty—representations from the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), and I assure both hon. Gentlemen that their views will be taken into account.

Mr. John Gummer: Will the Minister admit that absolutely no notice is taken of the issues when appeals are made to the Lord Chancellor? Courts in my constituency that did not infringe any of the criteria were closed after appeal. Are not the Government supposed to have the environment at the heart of all their policies? How, then, can the environment not be a consideration that overrules all others? Frankly, the Lord Chancellor allows any court to be closed that any magistrates courts committee thinks it would like to close.

Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. He came to see me, with a delegation of hon. Members, and his representations were carefully considered, as are those of all right hon. and hon. Members. It is not the case that every single appeal is dismissed. Indeed, I would be perfectly happy to give him statistics demonstrating that some appeals are allowed.

Legal Aid

Sir Sydney Chapman: What estimate he has made of legal aid expenditure in 1998–99; and what the figures were for (a) 10 and (b) 20 years earlier. [76339]

The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Legal aid expenditure in 1998–99 is expected to be about £1.6 billion; in 1988–89, it was £474 million; and in 1978–79, £83 million. Those figures show that the cost of legal aid over the past 20 years has increased by more than 490 per cent. above the rate of inflation.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that this is a classic case of introducing a benefit or grant for which demand will escalate? During his review of legal aid, will he appreciate that everything that he has said today and previously points to the single, simple objective

of controlling the amount of legal aid? Will he address the fact that he is cutting whole sections of qualification for legal aid that arise from genuine need?. Finally, in case there is any misunderstanding, let me declare that I am not a lawyer.

Mr. Hoon: I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman talk in that way when it was the Government whom he supported for many years who slashed eligibility. The present Government are delivering reform of the legal aid system by ensuring that those who need assistance will get it—and will get the best quality assistance at an appropriate time and in an appropriate manner.

Kosovo

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Madam Speaker, with your permission I will make a statement on Kosovo.
As I speak, it is still unclear what the outcome of Mr. Holbrooke's talks in Belgrade will be, but there is little cause to be optimistic. On the assumptions that they produce no change in President Milosevic's position and that the repression in Kosovo by Serb forces continues, Britain stands ready with its NATO allies to take military action.
We do so for very clear reasons. We do so primarily to avert what would otherwise be a humanitarian disaster in Kosovo. Let me give the House an indication of the scale of what is happening. A quarter of a million Kosovars—more than 10 per cent of the population—are now homeless as a result of repression by Serb forces; 65,000 people have been forced from their homes in the past month, and no fewer than 25,000 in the four days since the peace talks broke down; and only yesterday, 5,000 people in the Srbica area were forcibly evicted from their villages.
Much of the Drenica region of northern Kosovo is being cleared of ethnic Albanians. Every single village that the observers of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees could see yesterday in the Glogovac and Srbica region was on fire. Families are being uprooted and driven from their homes. There are reports of masked irregulars separating out the men: we do not know what their fate will be, but the House will recall that at Srebrenica, men were killed. Since last summer, 2000 people have died. Without the international verification force, there is no doubt that the numbers would have been vastly higher.
We act also because we know from bitter experience throughout this century, most recently in Bosnia, that instability and civil war in one part of the Balkans inevitably spills over into the whole of it, and affects the rest of Europe, too. I remind the House that there are now more than 1 million refugees from the former Yugoslavia in the European Union.
If Kosovo was left to the mercy of Serbian repression, there is not merely a risk, but the probability of re-igniting unrest in Albania, of a destabilised Macedonia, of almost certain knock-on effects in Bosnia, and of further tension between Greece and Turkey. Strategic interests for the whole of Europe are at stake. We cannot contemplate, on the doorstep of the EU, a disintegration into chaos and disorder.
We have made a very plain promise to the Kosovar people. Thousands of them returned to their homes as a result of the ceasefire negotiated last October. We said to them and to Milosevic that we would not tolerate the brutal suppression of the civilian population. After the massacre at Racak, those threats and warnings to Milosevic were repeated. To walk away now would not merely destroy NATO's credibility; more importantly, it would be a breach of faith with thousands of innocent civilians whose only desire is to live in peace, and who took us at our word.
I say this to the British people: there is a heavy responsibility on a Government, when putting their armed forces into battle, to justify such action. I warn that the

potential consequences of military action are serious, both for NATO forces and for the people in the region. Their suffering cannot be ended overnight. But in my judgment, the consequences of not acting are more serious still for human life and for peace in the long term. We must act to save thousands of innocent men, women and children from humanitarian catastrophe—from death, barbarism and ethnic cleansing by a brutal dictatorship—and to save the stability of the Balkan region, where we know chaos can engulf the whole of the European Union. We have no alternative, therefore, but to act, and act we will, unless Milosevic even now chooses the path of peace.
Let me recap briefly on the last few months. Last October, NATO threatened to use force to secure Milosevic's agreement to a ceasefire and an end to the repression that was at that time in hand. That was successful—at least, for a while. Diplomatic efforts, backed by NATO's threat, led to the creation of the 1,500-strong Kosovo verification mission. A NATO extraction force was established in neighbouring Macedonia in case the monitors got into difficulty.
At the same time, Milosevic gave an undertaking to the US envoy, Mr. Holbrooke, that he would withdraw Serb forces so that their numbers returned to the level before February 1998—that is, roughly 10,000 internal security troops and 12,000 Yugoslav army troops. Milosevic never fulfilled that commitment; indeed, the numbers have gone up. We believe that there are now some 16,000 internal security and 20,000 Yugoslav army troops in Kosovo, with a further 8,000 army reinforcements poised just over the border.
In January, NATO warned Milosevic that it would respond if he failed to come into compliance with the agreements he had entered into in October, if the repression continued, and if he frustrated the peace process. Milosevic has failed to meet any of those requirements. Even then, intense diplomatic efforts have been under way. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and his French colleague Mr. Védrine, have co-chaired the peace talks in France. There is an agreement on the table. Autonomy for Kosovo would be guaranteed, with a democratically elected assembly, accountable institutions and locally controlled police forces. After three years, Kosovo's status would be reviewed. The rights of all its inhabitants—including Serbs—would be protected, regardless of their ethnic background. And the awful conflict that has been a blight on the lives of its people could come to an end. The Kosovo Albanians have signed the peace agreement. The Serbs have not. They have reneged on the commitments they made on the political texts at the talks at Rambouillet, and they refuse to allow a peacekeeping force in Kosovo under NATO command to underpin implementation of the agreement.
It takes two sides to make peace. So far, only one side has shown itself willing to make that commitment. It was Milosevic who stripped Kosovo of its autonomy in 1989. It is Milosevic who is now refusing to tackle a political problem by political means.
NATO action would be in the form of air strikes. It will involve many NATO countries. It has the full support of NATO. It will have as its minimum objective to curb continued Serbian repression in Kosovo in order to avert a humanitarian disaster. It would therefore target the military capability of the Serb dictatorship. To avoid such action, Milosevic must do what he promised to do last


October—end the repression, withdraw his troops to barracks, get them down to the levels he agreed, and withdraw from Kosovo the tanks, heavy artillery and other weapons he brought into Kosovo early last year. He must agree to the proposals set out in the Rambouillet accords, including a NATO-led ground force.
Any attack by Serbian forces against NATO personnel engaged in peacekeeping missions elsewhere in the region would be completely unjustified and would be met with a swift and severe response in self-defence. President Milosevic should be in no doubt about our determination to protect our forces and to deal appropriately with any threats to them.
Mr. Holbrooke has made the position of the international community crystal clear to Milosevic. There can be no doubt about what is at stake. The choice is now his. Milosevic can choose peace for the peoples of Kosovo and an end to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's isolation in Europe, or he can choose continued conflict and the serious consequences that would follow.
I hope that the House will join me in urging President Milosevic to choose the path of peace, and that it will support NATO and the international community in action should he fail to do so.

Mr. William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for that statement. First and foremost, I express the Opposition's wholehearted support for the British forces who might have to take part in the NATO action, for the service men and women who will be backing up those front-line forces, and for the families of those who might have to risk their lives as they do their jobs.
Given the repeated threats and ultimatums issued over many months, the Opposition's position is that we support the Government taking the action described. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has often asked for similar action to be taken. Although we support the use of ground troops to implement a diplomatic settlement, we shall not support their use to fight for a settlement. During the past year, events in Kosovo have already led to a humanitarian catastrophe in our continent: more than 2,000 people have been killed, and hundreds of thousands have fled from their homes since the fighting began. As we speak, villages are being burned and people are being killed, as the Prime Minister has made clear.
It is clear that we now need to demonstrate to Milosevic the credibility of NATO threats and ultimatums. Does the Prime Minister agree that although, from the start of the crisis last year, there may have been a case—although we would not have agreed with it—for the west saying and doing nothing about events in Kosovo, and there was certainly a case for the west issuing threats and following them through, there was no case at all for a string of last warnings and ultimatums that were not followed through? The international monitors carried out their tasks with the utmost professionalism, in what had become an impossible situation. Does the Prime Minister understand the Opposition's regret that peace monitors were not deployed in May last year when we made our original request that they should be deployed? By the time that deployment took place in October, the situation had worsened and extremists on both sides had had time to win over more people from their communities.
Last year, the Government were right when they said that the response to the tragedy had been dithering and disunited on the part of the international community. Unfortunately, that continued for a long time and the credibility of NATO has been called into question. Does the Prime Minister understand that although we would welcome an explicit demonstration of NATO credibility of the kind that he has described, given the repeated threats of action we regret that some decisive action did not take place earlier?
We must all realise that military action against Serbia will put further strain on our armed forces. Does the Prime Minister recall the Chief of the Defence Staff telling the Select Committee on Defence that we could maintain two operations such as Bosnia and Kosovo for only six months? He said:
I do not think we could sustain two for longer than that.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House what steps he will take to ensure that the deployments that he has announced can be sustained? Will he give the House an assurance that precautions have been taken to prevent retaliation against British interests and British forces elsewhere in the world?
Any military action needs clear objectives. Although we support the Government's decision to use air strikes, will the Prime Minister confirm that those strikes are not a prelude to a ground war and that ground troops would be used only to implement a diplomatic settlement?
Can the Prime Minister also tell the House what measures are being taken to prevent the spread of the conflict to Albania, Bosnia and Macedonia? He has referred to his discussions with colleagues and he will recognise the need to do all in our power to encourage the international community to speak as one on this issue. Can he assure the House that Europe as a whole is now united on the need for action and can he inform us of what efforts have been made to meet the concerns of Russia?
Finally, does the Prime Minister agree that there is one person above all who must take the blame for the enormous suffering in Kosovo, one person who must take the blame for the enormous suffering in other parts of the Balkans during this decade, and one person who is solely to blame for the need to take the military action that the Prime Minister has been right to announce—and that that person is Milosevic, who must now be regarded as an evil man with much blood on his hands?

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what I take to be his support for our position. It is important that we in this House take a united view and I am grateful for that.
I shall deal with the right hon. Gentleman's points. It is certain that all our thoughts will be with armed forces and their families. Our armed forces are among the finest anywhere in the world and we can rightly be proud that, in a situation such as this, they are not only willing to take action, but capable of acting in such an effective manner. We have often had cause to be grateful to them.
Secondly, it is fair to say that we have always been in favour of taking action sooner rather than later, but we could not take action on a unilateral basis. We have to take action with other countries—in this instance, within NATO—and we have done that. The degree of unity not only within Europe, but within the whole of NATO, is extremely important to the success of the mission.
Thirdly, I have no doubt that the deployment can be sustained; nor do I doubt our ability to make good any threat of counter-attack should there be any question of retaliation against the peacekeeping forces elsewhere in the region. Milosevic should clearly understand that. The best insurance against the spread of the conflict is to take precisely the action that we are taking. We know from bitter experience that we cannot afford such instability on the borders of Europe.
I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Milosevic, but let me make one final point. It is important to realise that we have been able to build extremely strong support for this action within NATO. Thirteen nations, including the United Kingdom, have some 200 combat aircraft deployed to the region: the United States, the UK, France, Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Belgium, Portugal, Denmark and Norway have all committed aircraft, so this is a very united NATO action. If that unity is reflected across the Dispatch Box and within the House, that augurs well.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: This a bad business which could turn out to be a bloody one as well. None of us should underestimate the risk of casualties on either side. If air strikes prove to be necessary, those who advocate them and those who support them—as I do—might have to live with some extremely painful consequences.
Is it not true that it has become necessary to contemplate air strikes only because of the deliberate and brutal targeting of civilians by Serbian forces as they shell, loot and burn villages and make refugees of their inhabitants? Does the Prime Minister agree that if the immediate military aim is to inhibit and degrade the ability of Serbian forces to sustain and persist in their campaign of sickening and uninhibited violence, there must also be a political aim in addition to the strategic aims he outlined? May I suggest that that political aim should be to require the Milosevic Government to pay such a high price in military assets that they are persuaded—even compelled—to return to the conference table? Given that we should look ahead to the consequences of actions of this sort, does the Prime Minister accept that, if we have to embark on air strikes, that would be a step towards the creation of at least a de facto protectorate for Kosovo?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about the painful consequences of this action. As the leader of his party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), said yesterday, there are painful consequences involved in taking this action, but the consequences of not taking it are even more painful. That is the right and honest way to put it to people.
As I have said, the objective is to inhibit repression by Serbian forces. It remains our political aim to return to the negotiating table because there is no doubt that the Rambouillet accords offer the only proper and realistic possibility of a lasting political settlement. I pay tribute to the work of the British and French Foreign Secretaries in putting that agreement together.
Finally, as to air strikes, there is no plan to have a United Nations protectorate in the strict sense. However, we wanted to get ground forces into Kosovo in pursuit of

an agreement precisely to ensure that we could police that agreement properly and allow the constitutional settlement to take root. It is a tragedy that Milosevic has chosen not to take that chance. It is a double tragedy for him because the offer on the table was not a bad one from Serbia's point of view: it conceded many of the points that Serbia had made. By turning his back on that one opportunity to conclude an agreement, Milosevic has only himself to thank for the consequences.

Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend is right to make this grave eleventh-hour statement as a final warning to President Milosevic and to point out the high risks involved. Most hon. Members accept the need for air strikes, but with extreme reluctance because we surely cannot be confident that bombs will bring peace. This is a high-risk action.
Are there any circumstances in which Britain would be prepared to commit ground troops in answer to the "What then?" question? In what way can we seek, even now, to assist the refugees—either by reaching into Kosovo or by helping the neighbours of Kosovo, such as Macedonia, which has been, and will continue to be, harmed by the conflict on its borders?

The Prime Minister: I think that everyone shares a sense of reluctance to commit our forces. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, that reluctance is overcome if circumstances dictate that it must be.
We proposed committing ground troops to pursue a peace agreement. However, there is a difficulty with committing ground troops in order to fight our way in: no one should underestimate the sheer scale of what is involved in that action. We would be talking about 100,000 ground troops, and possibly even more.
As to refugees, we are working carefully with humanitarian organisations and we will continue to support UNHCR and other bodies. There is no point is concealing the fact that, if we are forced to take this action, it will be difficult for people on the ground over the next few days. However, the alternative is to allow the Serbian forces to continue their brutal repression of the Kosovo people.

Sir Archie Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister tell the House what his contingency plan is if the air strikes take place, yet Milosevic continues to defy NATO, does not withdraw his troops and the repression continues? What will the Prime Minister do then?

The Prime Minister: It is for precisely that reason that we set our clear objective to curb Milosevic's ability, through his military capability, to engage in that repression. That is our objective, and we shall carry on until it is fulfilled.

Mr. Bruce George: First, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister can count on the overwhelming support not only of the House but of the British public, particularly as he has put forward a convincing argument that the concept of a just war is not redundant. Secondly, I hope that he appreciates that now is not the time to rake over the coals and consider the mistakes of failed Government policies on Bosnia and Kosovo in the immediate past—or, indeed, the past decade.
Finally, will my right hon. Friend give reassurance to members of a Macedonian delegation who are here—as I was unable to do in a meeting between them and the Select Committee on Defence—that any attack on Macedonia in the present circumstances would be deemed to be an attack on NATO because Macedonia is housing NATO forces? They will clearly be concerned about the possible development of events in the next few days.

The Prime Minister: On the latter point, I assure my hon. Friend that any attack on NATO forces in Macedonia would be regarded as an attack on NATO itself and would bring about swift and severe retaliation.
My hon. Friend's first point is absolutely right: we are acting to avert a humanitarian disaster. If we do not act and the repression continues, its consequences will also continue. It is a sobering thought that we now have in the European Union more than 1 million refugees from the former Yugoslavia, and if anything demonstrates how much our fate, even here, is tied in with the fate of the Balkans, it is that statistic.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it not almost certain that air strikes alone will not achieve NATO's objectives, as General Sir Michael Rose repeated yet again on the "Today" programme this morning? May I remind the Prime Minister that when air strikes failed in Bosnia and the previous Conservative Government announced that they were sending one British infantry battalion there, I warned them that it was useless to send one battalion when four divisions would be needed on the ground to do the job, and that proved to be right?
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that saying weasel words to the British people at this point is wrong because the Government are proposing to make war on Serbia, and it is a profound political mistake to suppose that Milosevic is not supported by the mass of the patriotic Serbian people, who form one of the great fighting nations of Europe? If we are to pursue that policy, the British people should be told now that we are embarking inevitably on ground operations that will involve heavy casualties.

The Prime Minister: That is the isolationist wing of the Conservative party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it is. The hon. Gentleman must face up to the consequences that would arise from his views. I assume that he is attacking the whole policy on Bosnia, and that he would therefore have allowed the civil war and the repression in Kosovo to continue while he did nothing. The consequences would have been the brutal murder of tens of thousands—possibly hundreds of thousands—of people and chaos and instability on Europe's doorstep.
No one disputes the fact that taking our course is difficult, and I said that in my statement, but the consequences of not acting would be to plunge the whole region into chaos and consign thousands of innocent people to death and brutality. Britain should not regard that as an acceptable outcome.

Mr. Clive Soley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the British people have learned more than anyone else that appeasement

does not work and that ours is not only a just cause but, more importantly, one that affects the stability of Europe? Does he further accept that the British people recognise what is involved in such situations? Finally, will he remind the political and military leaders in the former Yugoslavia that some of their people have already been put on trial for war crimes, that British people and the emerging law around the world no longer allow people to forgive and forget those barbaric crimes, and that there is time yet for those people to be put on trial too?

The Prime Minister: That is an entirely appropriate warning that the war crimes legislation exists, and that people who engage in the crimes of ethnic cleansing and brutal suppression and murder, whether in the Balkans or elsewhere in the world, stand at risk. We should be prepared to use the war crimes legislation to bring them to account.

Mr. Tom King: Does the Prime Minister accept that he has done a service to the House through the clarity of his statement, which leaves no doubt in anyone's mind about the gravity of the choice that faced him and the Government, and which faces our country, or about the size of the challenge that will face our armed forces? There is, in my judgment, no alternative but to demonstrate firmly the credibility of NATO and to deal with a very serious situation.
If air strikes are successful, it will be essential for the land eventually to be retained by ground forces, as is part of the Prime Minister's plan. That will involve substantial deployments. Under the present provisions, I understand, they cannot be sustained for a long period. Will the Prime Minister give urgent consideration to that? We ask a lot of our armed forces. They unfailingly respond, as they have done on many occasions, but they are entitled to our fullest support and the knowledge that they will be properly supported on this occasion.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those comments and his support, which is all the more welcome from someone with his experience in such matters. I can assure him that we have carefully looked to see that the deployment can be sustained. We believe that it can be sustained.
I agree that if the air strikes are successful, we need to get the political process back on track. That is our aim, politically. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have no alternative if NATO is to remain credible. That is not our principal reason for acting, however. We are not acting in pursuit of a theory of credibility, but we have given certain undertakings, and if we do not abide by them, we will not have credibility in the future.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is absolute unanimity in the House and the country about the scale of the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo? May I tell him that the statement that he made is one of the gravest that I have heard in the House, certainly since Suez? An ultimatum has been announced, amounting to an all-out air war and possibly a ground war against a member state of the United Nations which, under article 51, has the right of self-defence. By doing so, the British Government and other NATO Governments are defying the charter, to which we are committed, and breaking international law. If the bombing begins—apart


from the fact that it is no more likely to be successful than it is in Iraq—it is bound to cause casualties and worsen the humanitarian crisis, and it could well broaden the Balkan conflict.
May I point out to the Prime Minister that there are two bodies that he never mentioned in his statement? One is the United Nations, which exists to deal with crises of this kind, and the other is the House of Commons. We represent the forces who may well be sent into conflict—they are our constituents, our families. Not a moment of thought was given to a debate in the House, which would allow more than question and answer, and through which we could explore the Government's policy, consider whether it will lead to a ground war, as many believe it might, and come to a conclusion about it. To treat the House as though it were just an audience for "Newsnight" on so grave a matter is simply below the standard that we are entitled to expect.

The Prime Minister: There have been no fewer than three statements on the matter in the House of Commons during the past few weeks. There is a defence debate on Thursday. I am making the statement today in the House, where I can be questioned, not least by my right hon. Friend. That is hardly a "Newsnight" interview—I will not go into whether it is more pleasant or not.
I shall answer my right hon. Friend's two specific points. First, as a result of our action in Iraq, I remember how many people told me that Saddam Hussein would be stronger as a result, that he would be more powerful, and that he would be better able to suppress his people and wage war on the outside world. None of those things has happened. He is weaker, his military capability is weaker, and his ability to suppress his own people is hugely diminished.
Secondly, the UN has been important in relation to Kosovo. It has passed important Security Council resolutions. Let me read them to my right hon. Friend. The last one, Security Council resolution 1199, demanded that Serbs cease all actions by their security forces against the civilian population, and demanded that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Government order the withdrawal of security units used for civilian repression. A further resolution in October last year, UNSCR 1203, reiterated the previous one and endorsed the agreements between Holbrooke and Milosevic, including the verification missions. Milosevic has been in breach of every single part of those UN resolutions.
The plain fact of the matter is that we have to act now to avert the humanitarian disaster that I have set out. Of course, we will have an opportunity to debate this, and of course we should debate it, but the reasons that we have given have been very clear and I hope that they will be supported by the House and the country.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The vast majority of the House is in no doubt as to who the aggressor is in these circumstances. But I have been listening carefully to the Prime Minister during the past 15 minutes, and it is not yet clear to me whether he has ruled out the use of ground forces if air power fails. I can understand his being cautious, but is that something that he can do, or does he feel that he cannot do it under the circumstances?

The Prime Minister: No, I have made it clear that we support the use of ground troops in supporting

the agreement. We do not plan to use ground troops in order to fight our way into Kosovo, for the very reason that I gave earlier. I do not know whether that is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, but it would take a huge commitment—possibly more than 100,000 ground troops—and that is why we have said that that is not our plan.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Prime Minister accept that commentators observing the state of play in Serbia record the fact that the majority of the Serbian population are blissfully unaware of the atrocities that are being committed against their Albanian Kosovar neighbours? As a child, I witnessed how the bombing of Britain strengthened the resolve in the population here against the axis. What measures are being taken to inform the Serbian people of what their leaders are doing on their behalf, but not at their behest?

The Prime Minister: That is an extremely good point, but we have one great inhibition in getting through to the Serbian people directly, and that is that there is state control of their broadcasting and media. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: they are blissfully unaware of many of the things that their regime is doing. We take every measure available to us to get through to them, but it is difficult, precisely for that reason. It is worth pointing out that some of Milosevic's victims are his own people.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I welcome the clarity with which the Prime Minister set out his solemn statement today. Does he agree that the House should be fortified and sustained by NATO's unity at this difficult time, and will he confirm that the United Nations resolutions do give the necessary legal authority for air strikes to proceed? For my part, I think it unlikely that they will be successful, and likely that ground troops will have to be deployed. To that end, does he agree that, throughout the period of hostility, the political track must be kept going?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely that the political track must be kept going the whole time. One reason why people say that we have over-delayed in this is that, from last October onwards, we had a political track that we were trying to make work, precisely because we understood the consequences of taking military action. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the UN and legal authority, and I also agree that we should be fortified by NATO's unity. The fact that 13 countries now have combat aircraft in the region, able to be used in the operation, is an example of NATO's strength and purpose.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Thursday's debate is scheduled to be answered by the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary. In the circumstances, would the Prime Minister consider that either the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence, and perhaps he himself, should take part in what is a crucial debate?
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the Prime Minister said that there would be "swift retaliation" if Yugoslav troops attacked troops in Macedonia. What, exactly, is meant by


"swift retaliation" in those circumstances? Finally, a factual question: what have Mr. Primakov and the Russians had to say about the proposed military strike?

The Prime Minister: The position of the Russian Government and Prime Minister Primakov is well known and I doubt that it has changed, although they, too, feel a huge degree of frustration about the way their attempts to try to get a peace process on track have been thwarted by Milosevic. As for swift retaliation, we will judge that according to the needs that may arise at the time. It would not be wise speculate on that further, but people should know that, if our forces are attacked, there will be retaliation and it will be severe. Finally, my understanding is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is indeed opening the debate on Thursday.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The Prime Minister has said that action is now required to avert a humanitarian disaster, but the situation that he has graphically described shows that a humanitarian disaster already exists in Kosovo. I accept the exchanges that have taken place about the use of ground forces, but the Prime Minister said in reply to one question that as many as 100,000 troops might be required if ground forces had to be committed to follow up air strikes. The Serb army numbers more than 200,000, so many more than 100,000 troops would be required.
Following on from the Prime Minister's answer that troops would be deployed to Macedonia if there was a direct threat to the extraction force of 10,000 troops there, I remind him that the Macedonian army numbers only 20,000; it is a tenth the size of the Serbian army. What contingency plans have the Government, with our NATO allies, to deploy troops to Macedonia quickly—we lack heavy lift—so that they are ready to take action against Serbia, if that is required?

The Prime Minister: There are already many troops and heavy weapons in Macedonia—and, indeed, elsewhere—so NATO certainly has the means to visit severe retaliation on Milosevic should he attack any NATO forces. In respect of the ground troops, I agree that more than 100,000 would be needed; that is the very reason why I am suggesting the difficulties of taking such a course.
The hon. Gentleman says that a humanitarian disaster already exists in Kosovo. That is why we need to act, but if we were to fail to act—if we were simply to allow Serb forces to carry on their repression, without even the inhibition that the threat of action might have—there is absolutely no doubt at all what would happen. They would repeat what happened at Racak many times over.

Mr. David Winnick: Is not the choice for the international community simple? Either we allow the atrocities—crimes against humanity—to continue or we decide to act, and act decisively. We listen to the voices of non-intervention in this House, but almost without exception, those who argue for non-intervention and issue constant warnings of what disasters will follow if we intervene were wrong about the Falklands in 1982, wrong about Kuwait in 1991, and certainly wrong in

respect of how the international community helped to achieve a settlement in Bosnia in 1995. Why on earth should we believe that they are right now?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that there are those who can always find a reason never to act. I emphasise that the consequences of this action will be serious—we know that—but as we have said before, the consequences of not acting are more serious still.

Mr. Paul Keetch: While I agree with the Prime Minister about the professionalism of our armed forces in the region—I have constituents out there, as have other hon. Members—what British civilians are there on the ground? Is he aware that British subjects have been targeted for kidnapping and killing by terrorist organisations in recent months? How will he ensure that British civilians are kept out of events as much as possible?

The Prime Minister: We have given clear advice to any civilian organisations operating in the area and we give what protection we possibly can. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are well aware of the danger and threat to our civilians.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Prime Minister accept that many of us genuinely believe that bombing a sovereign state could cause more, not fewer, civilian casualties, and could destabilise the whole of south-eastern Europe because the Serbs will almost certainly fight to defend their homeland? Is he aware that I visited Macedonia a few weeks ago? Not a single Macedonian Member of Parliament or citizen to whom I spoke believed that Macedonia should be used by NATO to take aggressive action against the Serbs—although the Macedonians rightly expect protection, given that they have allowed NATO extraction forces to be based there. They believed that dialogue was the best way forward. Perhaps a different way—perhaps putting sanctions against the Serbs on the table—might have helped, although sanctions harm the economies of emerging democracies in the area.
What will the strategy be if the bombing fails? What will we do if what is rightly described as the disgraceful action against the Kosovars continues?

The Prime Minister: We have set our objective; we intend to succeed in it. I agree with my hon. Friend that dialogue is the best way forward. That is why we went the extra mile to put together the talks process at Rambouillet. We put together the agreements last October between Milosevic and Richard Holbrooke. We have done everything that we possibly could to make dialogue work, but we are left with the realisation that dialogue has not worked. Then what do we do? Do we simply allow the repression to continue, or do we act?
In the past couple of years, there have been several occasions when the Government have faced that dilemma. No one wants to commit our forces unless we really have to do so, and everyone understands that the consequences of doing so will always include an element of uncertainty, but if we do not do that and we allow this to continue, then what? That is also a fair question to ask.
My hon. Friend talks about the Serbs and their homeland. The concept of Kosovo as an autonomous area within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia strikes the right balance, recognising that the vast majority of people in Kosovo are ethnic Albanians and that it is their homeland too. All they desire to do is to be allowed to live in peace there, free from repression. We surely have to be the people who give them that chance.

Mr. David Curry: What happens if bombing does not bring President Milosevic to the negotiating table?

The Prime Minister: I set our objective clearly. It is to curb Milosevic's ability to repress the Kosovo population. We want him to come back to the negotiating table, but the precise minimum objective of any military action has to be to curb his ability—to reduce his ability—to suppress the Kosovar Albanian people. That has to be the task that we set ourselves. We can fulfil that objective. It is the right objective and it ties in, rightly, with our justification, which is primarily—as I set out in my statement—humanitarian.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Although I support my right hon. Friend's statement, we have still not had the answer to the question, "What if?" If it is our aim to curb the Yugoslav ability to persecute the Albanian people, the logic of that must be that we put in land troops. If we do not put in troops on the ground and merely use air strikes, we are left in a worse position than when we began.
Is not the logic of the position that, eventually, we will end up with at least a United Nations protectorate or a NATO protectorate, if not an independent Kosovo, with the problems that that will have? How will we be certain that the Dayton accords will be upheld by all the signatories to them?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that land troops are necessary to curb repression in Kosovo. Air strikes properly targeted—directed against the military capability of the oppressor—can achieve the objective that we set ourselves.
Secondly, my hon. Friend mentioned the concept of a United Nations protectorate. There is no notion of establishing a UN protectorate in the strict legal sense, but obviously the purpose of putting in ground troops was to back up an agreement—a constitutional settlement—in Kosovo, and that, of course, is what we still want to do if it is possible. A precondition, however, is that an agreement is in place to which not merely the Kosovar Albanians but the Serbs themselves will agree.
I believe that the action that we have proposed will be successful.

Mr. Julian Brazier: No one envies the Prime Minister the decision he must make. Does he accept, however, that evidence from Hanoi to Grozny suggests that bombing alone strengthens the resolve of a people, rather than weakening it—especially when those people, like the Serbs, have hundreds of years of memories of what they perceive as resisting the bullying of larger powers?
Does the Prime Minister really believe that bombing alone will reduce the atrocities being perpetrated against the Kosovar Albanians? If he is not willing to follow up bombing with the use of ground forces—and he has explained very clearly why we should not do that—I put it to him that it would be better not to bomb at all.

The Prime Minister: That, of course, is the conclusion of the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends—that we should not do this at all. I disagree entirely. If the hon. Gentleman wants an example of bombing achieving our objective, he should consider Iraq, where it certainly achieved the objective that we set ourselves. Let me give him another example. I do not believe that under the last Government, before the Dayton accords, we would ever have got the process under way had not military action been taken by allied forces. It is possible to give examples even from the region itself that show this to be a realistic objective.
I have explained the difficulty with ground forces. The hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to say at the outset that this is a difficult decision to make. I can only say that if we do not make that decision, and take no military action—let us be clear: we are not going to send in 100,000 or 200,000 ground forces with the consent of other countries, for no such consent exists—the repression in Kosovo will continue, and Serbia will know that there is absolutely no restraint or inhibition on its action. The consequences of that would be devastating.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said that the Macedonian people were not in favour of the action, but the Macedonian Government have supported our position. People in that area know the consequences of letting the whole region slip back into total chaos.

Mr. John Austin (Erith and Thamesmead): The Prime Minister has set out very clearly the consequences of non-action, and the possibility of a wider Balkan conflict. He also referred to dialogue. Is he aware that, while Holbrooke was in dialogue with Milosevic yesterday and today, the bombing and burning of villages continued? Does he agree that the time for appeasement has plainly ended?
Will the Prime Minister consider again whether Serbia has forfeited any right that it may have claimed to govern the people of Kosovo? Will he also give further consideration to the declaration of a United Nations protectorate of Kosovo, to shield it from further Serbian aggression?

The Prime Minister: I entirely share my hon. Friend's sentiments about the bombing and burning that continue. As for the declaration of a UN protectorate, I have said what I have said.
The Kosovar Albanians have indicated that they can accept the accords negotiated at Rambouillet. If the Serbs would only accept them too, we could put the process of agreement back on track. As my hon. Friend rightly said, however, our immediate aim must be to stop the unacceptable repression of the people.

Age (Prevention of Discrimination)

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent discrimination in employment and in other matters on grounds of age.
We serve as Members of the House of Commons without limit of age; our capacity to do so is measured by other yardsticks. That is an unusual position in Britain today. Increasingly, older workers are being forced out of their jobs well before they reach the official retirement ages of 60 and 65, and they are unlikely to find new employment once they are into their 50s. All parties in the House recognise the need to prevent discrimination in employment against older people.
Today, people in the United Kingdom understand that to refuse someone a job because they are black or a woman is wrong. Tomorrow, they must see that it is wrong to refuse an applicant a job merely because of his or her age. Such discrimination can be devastating and humiliating to those who suffer from it. After half a lifetime of work and achievement, they are told that they are good for nothing.
What are the facts? The Employers Forum on Age estimates that, today, of 9.3 million people aged between 50 and 65 in the United Kingdom, some 3.7 million are not in work. Most of them—3.4 million people—are classified as economically inactive, which is to say that they are neither available for nor seeking work.
Men aged between 50 and 65 are disappearing from businesses in Britain. In 1976, only 11 per cent. of men of that age were inactive; today, the figure is 27 per cent. That is causing huge damage to our country's economy in lost output of goods and services. Costly training, acquired skills and valuable experience are all being wasted. Taxpayers are becoming tax takers. It is a shocking waste of energy and talent, and it is getting worse. In the past 20 years, the figures for unemployed older people have doubled. In a society in which the proportion of older people is steadily rising, that must cause great concern.
Some economic simpletons fantasise that if we give work to the old, we take it away from the young. The idea is false. It is nonsense to say that there is a finite apple pie of work, and that if we give a larger slice of it to older people, there will be a smaller slice for the young. As economies grow, so do the number of jobs. From 1975 to 1995, employment in the United States, Canada and Australia has risen by more than 40 per cent., and the jobs in those places have not all gone to younger people.
The House must take up both the carrot and the cudgel of persuasion. We have, so far, preferred the carrot. The Conservative Administration relied on road shows and pamphlets to chivvy employers into taking on older workers. The current Government are publishing a non-statutory code of practice. Equal Rights on Age—the umbrella campaigning group, which includes Members of Parliament and charities—points out that the code will be without teeth. John Monks, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, has also predicted that a voluntary code will be largely ineffective.
Exhortation has certainly not proved itself. The Government's pilot scheme is called new deal for older workers, and it may be shown to be helpful. The approach, however, will not eliminate the problem of discrimination.
I listened with mixed feelings to the passage in the Chancellor's Budget speech on helping older citizens back to work. I am pleased that the Government are aware of the problem, and "£9,000 guaranteed" has a nice ring to it. However, what if one cannot get a job? What if, even after the £750 towards retraining, no employer is willing to let one prove one's worth? The £9,000 will remain beyond reach.
The Government's incorporation of the European convention on human rights will help to cut out the cancer of discrimination from public bodies, but age is not specifically mentioned in the relevant article—article 14. It is true that article 6a of the treaty of Amsterdam condemns discrimination on grounds of age. Nevertheless, the convention and the treaty make no demands on the private sector—which is why we need legislation.
Although we have legislation outlawing discrimination, it may be pointed out that women and ethnic minorities are still fighting to secure the same chances of employment as white men. However, such laws do provide remedies for the victims. They edge forward compliance with society's accepted standards and contribute to changing perceptions of what is appropriate practice by employers. The United States has had an Act preventing discrimination against older workers since 1967, and amendments have widened it to cover both private and public sector workers over the age of 40.
The House will understand that we cannot directly and easily use the experience of other countries to illuminate conditions here, but research shows that job losses in the United States from the delayering of businesses—as it was called in the 1980s—were more evenly spread across age groups than in this country. Research cited in the Employment Gazette shows that legislation can get
employers to reconsider job evaluations and descriptions and to use objective rather than arbitrary age criteria.
The Bill would introduce a framework law to prevent discrimination in employment, redundancy and promotion on the ground of age. The civil law would enable instances of discrimination to be brought to court and made subject to civil penalties, or taken to an industrial tribunal if preferred. A commission would be appointed to help older citizens to know and secure their rights. When the time was right, it would merge into a single equality commission, similar to the body being created in Northern Ireland.
If we are to create a society in which the potential and energy of all our citizens can bear fruit, we must outlaw discrimination against older citizens now.

Mr. Eric Forth: We have just heard a seductive argument—such arguments usually are—but before accepting it, we should pause for a moment to explore the possible implications. I thought that we were going to hear that because something happened in the United States, it must be rather good and we should copy it. I often find that argument seductive and persuasive, but the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) held back from that, although the fact that he cited the United States as a precedent gives me pause for thought.
While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, I was wondering how such a measure would work in practice. Open and honest as ever, he gave the answer, which gave


me pause for thought. Leaving aside whether legislation against discrimination succeeds in changing attitudes, it inevitably involves all the factors that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned: a commission, a framework law, civil law, the courts and civil penalties. Now we know what we are talking about—the familiar phenomenon of a bureaucracy. The discrimination industry was set up with the best of intentions, but it has burgeoned into large bureaucratic bodies that are a burden on the taxpayer and eventually a burden on business.
Let us make no mistake about the fact that we are talking about a burden on business. As business knows to its cost—though not necessarily to the cost of us in this House—whenever such proposals are brought forward by well-intentioned politicians, they immediately involve others in the bureaucracy, paid for by taxpayers' money, then the framework law, the civil law, the courts and civil penalties. Then there is mention of resort to tribunals. That is a controversial subject. How far are we prepared to introduce the possibility of resort to tribunals in addition to the courts and legal action, with the taxpayer-funded bureaucracy behind it?
The Bill would add yet another layer to the bureaucracy that exists in an attempt to overcome racial or gender prejudice. Another prejudice has been identified that must be tackled by the bureaucracy, paid for by the taxpayer, and pursued through tribunals or courts of law. That ends up as a penalty on business.

Mr. David Winnick: Why not?

Mr. Forth: I am about to say why not. We must face the fact that the proposals are not a cost-free option. First, there is a cost to the taxpayer at large. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will be too worried about that as he supports a taxing Government. I suspect that he and many of his hon. Friends feel comfortable with the concept of additional tax burdens. They may not be ready to admit it yet, but it is increasingly understood.
Secondly, it is a burden on business—usually on small businesses, as they tend to be taken to tribunals where they have to spend time defending themselves and then

pay for redress. Therefore, such a measure will certainly not be cost free. Whatever its positive benefits—and I very much doubt them—I doubt whether many mature people would get jobs as a result of the bureaucracy, the framework of law, the civil actions, and the additional taxes and imposts on business that would result.
The risk of such an approach is that, by adding costs and burdens to business, we might jeopardize other people's jobs—indeed, they might be older people. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that very often these days, the older age group is first at risk if there is a squeeze on employment. Therefore, there is the possibility—I put it no higher than that—of a paradox arising of the very people whom the measure is intended to help being the first to suffer from its effects.
I hope that we will think long and hard before we go down this route too quickly because we really must examine all the implications, downsides, penalties and risks for what are not certain, but arguable benefits. I have tried briefly to identify the costs, penalties and difficulties. Even the right hon. Gentleman, in his more optimistic moments, might admit that the benefits of such a measure are at the very least doubtful. They are definitely not certain. I have the very gravest doubts about the measure and I hope that it will be considered in great detail before it proceeds further. I also hope that the House will be alerted to the likely possibility of its negative effects as well as its possible benefits.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. David Atkinson, Dr. Roger Berry, Dr. Vincent Cable, Mr. Don Foster, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Dr. Evan Harris, Ms Linda Perham, Mr. Andrew Rowe and Angela Smith.

AGE (PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION)

Mr. Robert Maclennan accordingly presented a Bill to prevent discrimination in employment and in other matters on grounds of age: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed [Bill 69].

Point of Order

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today in the Daily Mirror there is a report about Anita Froggatt, who is a constituent of mine. She had a breast removed at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire royal hospital. The operation turned out to have been an error. It has emerged that the consultant pathologist, who has now been suspended, was also involved in a previous case. As this has implications generally for breast screening and treatment throughout the national health service, have you had any indication from the Secretary of State for Health that he will be making a statement on the matter?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): As the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of experience of the House, he will know that that is not strictly a point of order for the Chair, although these issues raise wider concerns. The answer to his question is no. There has been no such request.

Local Government Bill [Money] (No. 2)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in making grants to the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Mr. Andrew Lansley: As ever with a money resolution, I am sorry that the Minister did not rise to move it. Therefore, it falls to me to explain why we have the money resolution at all. We have it because the Government have tabled amendment No. 12, the purpose of which is to give the Secretary of State powers to make grants to the Audit Commission in respect of local authorities and the national health service in England and Wales.

Mr. Eric Forth: Has my hon. Friend, uncharacteristically, made a mistake? He suggests that we are debating a money resolution before an amendment has been considered, or even passed, by the House. Has he got this the wrong way round? Is he saying that we are being asked to consider, debate and—presumably—approve a money resolution before the amendment that gives rise to it has even been considered?

Mr. Lansley: My right hon. Friend's knowledge of these matters—from his years of service in the House—will doubtless be greater than mine. The Bill has had the benefit of a money resolution earlier, but a second money resolution is now required because the Government have tabled an amendment that, if it is agreed to on Report, will give an additional power to the Secretary of State to make grants to the Audit Commission—a power that was not in the Bill beforehand. Therefore, the preceding money resolution did not encompass such a power.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) chides me for being wrong, but I think that I am right. The Government are proposing that the House should vote on a money resolution and then debate for the first time, by way of amendment No. 12, whether it is expedient for the Secretary of State to have such a power to make grants to the Audit Commission. While my right hon. Friend thinks about that, I will state what I see as some of the difficulties that might ensue from such a money resolution.
First, it is not a small change in the character of the money resolution—and it may well not be small change in monetary terms, either. Sometimes a change of this kind might be a small matter, in that the Bill is an expenditure Bill and the money resolution is simply to make sure that grants can be paid to a particular authority, rather than another. However, the change in the character of this money resolution is substantial.
As I understand it, the previous expectation of the effect of the Bill was that it would reduce public expenditure, rather than increase it. Essentially, the previous money resolution would have been based on explanatory notes published alongside the Bill, which foresaw three effects on the public finances. The first was that the Government


proposed that continuous improvement in the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of local authorities through best value would lead to a significant cost saving. That is a debatable point—and I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would stop me if I were to debate that at length.
It is clear from the way in which some local authorities have responded to best value that they are more concerned with finding ways, through consultation, to justify increases in expenditure on services, rather than finding ways through best value of reducing such expenditure.
The second aspect relates to the compliance costs of local authorities. It is anticipated in the explanatory notes that such compliance costs will be encompassed within existing budgets, and will not therefore lead to an increase in total expenditure. The Minister may be aware, because of the Labour control of Brighton and Hove council, that the costs involved for that council are £180,000. If one extrapolates that to other local authorities, one is looking at potentially millions of pounds within local authorities.
The third example relates to costs for central Government, but there is no mention in the explanatory notes of any costs arising for central Government. Only the capping powers, which will control the total expenditure of local government to some extent, are mentioned.
The money resolution proposes for the first time an increase in central Government costs arising directly from the Bill. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so I come to these matters relatively new—although I believe I spoke on Second Reading—but I get the impression that the Government are acknowledging at a very late stage that costs will arise and that they will need to make additional grants to compensate the Audit Commission for its extra activities as the inspection authority. As I understand it, Ministers resisted that notion in Committee.

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We recognised it in new clause 5.

Sir Paul Beresford: New clause 5, which is now clause 12, adds to the complications. A scale of fees will be set, but there is no upper limit and the Bill merely requires discussion. The answers that we got in Committee were inadequate, to put it mildly. I strongly support my hon. Friend in seeking an explanation before we even consider the resolution.

Mr. Lansley: In his usual perceptive way, my hon. Friend has come precisely to my next point. It is perfectly clear that clause 12 provides a requirement on local authorities to pay the Audit Commission fees for inspections. What are the additional costs to the Audit Commission that will not be recovered by way of fees and need to be the subject of a central Government grant?
Normally, we debate a money resolution in the light of explanatory notes that offer some guidance about the expenditure to be incurred, but there is no such guidance in this case. In particular, we do not know how much of the cost will arise from inspections not covered by fees and how much will relate to other activities undertaken by the Audit Commission on behalf of the Government.
The money resolution may be inadequate, because inspection of best value will not be a function that is confined to the Audit Commission. New clause 4 refers

to a whole range of inspection authorities—including the inspectorates of fire services, schools, police and social services—that will need to co-ordinate their activities with the Audit Commission.
My understanding—I hope that the Minister will not disabuse me of it, as that would negate many of the purposes of the best value process—is that many of those inspection authorities will also incur costs in implementing best value, which they will not necessarily be able to recover through fees under clause 12, because the power does not extend to them. Should not the costs that they are likely to incur be the subject of grant-making powers on the part of the Secretary of State?
A large part of the Bill is devoted to the circumstances under which the Secretary of State can intervene in respect of a failing authority. The Secretary of State can exercise those functions, or can do so through a nominated person. The Bill does not make clear, however, the extent to which the Secretary of State is able wholly to meet his costs or those of any nominated person through charges levied on the local authority that is subject to an intervention. That is not explained in the Bill or in the explanatory notes.
If costs will not be wholly met, they will arise for central Government, and may arise for persons nominated by the Secretary of State to intervene in a local authority that is failing in the exercise of a specific function. There may, therefore, be public expenditure that is not allowed for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman is enlarging his argument beyond the narrow terms of the money resolution. He must relate his remarks to likely expenditure incurred by the Audit Commission.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you are quite right. I was talking about what I see as a deficiency in the two money resolutions on the Bill. They may not correctly anticipate where expenditure will arise, or provide adequately for the Secretary of State to incur expenditure as a consequence of the Bill. I seek guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether it is in order to speak further on that matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not repeat the part of his speech that I have ruled out of order.

Mr. Lansley: Thank you, Mr, Deputy Speaker. As you have correctly brought me to order, I shall not elaborate on the point.
It seems remiss of the Government to introduce money resolutions without telling us how much money is involved and without offering guidance in the explanatory notes. In my limited experience of these matters, money resolutions are not necessarily debated, but that is often because expected costs are set out in detail in the explanatory notes.
The Bill, however, gives grant-making powers in respect of the Audit Commission without any indication of what costs will arise or what they are intended to defray. Is the Audit Commission to receive the costs of undertaking best value inspection in local authorities, or will it be compensated by the Secretary of State for


intervening in local authorities—or for any other matter—on his behalf? Neither the money resolution nor the explanatory notes sets out the maximum level of costs likely to be incurred.
Money resolutions are not normally contentious, but the Government have begun today's proceedings badly by tabling a late amendment that has given rise to a new money resolution. They have not provided the House with the information necessary to reach a decision on the resolution.

Mr. Eric Forth: I echo and reinforce the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). Ministers seem, individually and collectively, to be slow learners. They must know by now that it would help the House—and even, occasionally, foreshorten debate; I do not think that is desirable, but some people wish it—if they did the House the courtesy of speaking to their money resolutions.
It matters not whether the resolution has to do with a private Member's Bill—I take an occasional interest in such matters—or a Bill of the Government's own. Money resolutions are an important part of our proceedings. Bizarrely, however, and time and time again, money resolutions appear on the Order Paper but there is silence from the Government. The House is presumably expected either to pass the resolutions on the nod without scrutinising them, or to wander around in something of a speculative fog, awaiting some explanation from a Minister.
I do not for one moment suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire was in a speculative fog. I thought his analysis as sharp and clear as ever it is, given the lack of information offered to him and to the House. I must, perforce—though not at length, as more of my hon. Friends may have questions of their own—speculate a little myself.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, I did not have the privilege and pleasure of serving in Committee, so I come to the issues with a fresh mind—even, one might say, a delightfully innocent mind—and not one with well formed views. My mind is open to being moulded and persuaded by the Minister about the virtues of the money resolution.
I have picked up enough information from my hon. Friends to realise that the basis for the money resolution is clauses 10 to 13 of the Bill, which set out the responsibilities laid on the Audit Commission in the policing of the best value concept. That much I understand, but then I get confused. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out, amendment No. 12—to which we shall come later—repeats the provisions in relation to the Audit Commission and the National Assembly for Wales. However, my hon. Friend did not mention amendment No. 19 which provides that
The Audit Commission may delegate … its functions … to … a committee or sub-committee established by the Commission (including a committee or sub-committee including persons who are not members of the Commission), or… an officer or servant of the Commission.

I assume that that means that it is possible that activities of the Audit Commission that go beyond those originally envisaged by the Bill could—and almost certainly will—involve additional expenditure. That may be one of the reasons why the Government have had to table another money resolution. Colleagues more expert than myself may elucidate the possibility that, for the first time, persons who are not members of the Audit Commission would be part of committees or sub-committees to fulfil the responsibilities laid on it by the Bill. That is new territory for the Audit Commission, its structure and activities and I can see why the Government have had to table another money resolution to support the amendments, although—paradoxically—they are not yet part of the Bill.
What would happen if we were to approve the money resolution now but did not approve one or more of the amendments later? We would he in a peculiar position. Having said, perhaps reluctantly, to the Government, "All right, we accept that more money is needed, but we do not agree with the reason why more money is needed", would the Government return with what might be called a negative money resolution—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a procedural difficulty that we will address if we have to. We can discuss at present, in anticipation of the new clause that the House is greatly looking forward to discussing, only the narrow scope of the extent to which expenditure may occur as a result of the Audit Commission having those powers.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it puts us in an odd position, as you may agree. We would have been saved all this trouble if the Minister had elegantly and succinctly told us, at the beginning, what the money resolution was all about. I have no doubt that she would have been able to persuade us quickly, but as it is we must ask the questions and wait for the answers.

5 pm

Sir Paul Beresford: I was a member of the Standing Committee and I also spoke on Second Reading, when considerable concern was expressed, especially by those of us who realise the difficulties that local government may face in respect of the expenditure that will result from the Bill. The greatest concern was about the expenditure that would be landed on local authorities by the Audit Commission and the auditors. It is worth touching on the peculiar relationship between the Audit Commission and the auditors in that it involves pay and rations but limited control. There were distinct concerns about the load that the Bill would put on local government and about the fact that there seemed to be no form of restriction or hold.
It must be a relief to local authorities that the money resolution has been introduced, because it seems that some of the expenditure will be drawn away from them. However, we have had no explanation of that, and there has been no anticipation of the size of that expenditure. If one wants to get a sense of the size of expenditure involved, one needs only to look at the recent activity of the auditor for Westminster council. After his investigation, local council tax payers were charged between £3 million and £4 million. If that amount were extrapolated—I realise that it would be an exaggeration—


or even if half the amount were extrapolated across all the sizeable local authorities in the country, the expenditure would be enormous.
The debate on the money resolution came as a surprise to many of us, because we did not know about it until we saw today's Order Paper. We have no idea what the resolution applies to; we have been given no idea of what the total expenditure might be, nor of how great a load it will remove from local government. We do not know whether there will be any hold or restrictions on the amount of the expenditure and, if there are to be such restrictions, who will hold the reins. Is this to be one of those measures where the Secretary of State offers a broad-brush approach, saying, "Yes, I will pay", but that when we consider the secondary legislation that may or may not apply? We have yet to consider some of that legislation. Is the answer to be "yes, if and but", but, at the end of the day, local government will still pick up the tab? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we have been landed with this resolution; there is to be a formal nod instead of an explanation. The least that we can expect is a full and clear explanation from the Minister.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The money resolution arises from an intention expressed by the Minister in Standing Committee. When we discussed fees, she said—

Ms Armstrong: It has all been explained before.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Lady is now saying from a sedentary position that it has all been explained before, but, as she well knows, a large number of hon. Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. If the Minister wants to contribute to the debate, she should do so from the Dispatch Box and not from a sedentary position.

Mr. Jenkin: I should be delighted if the right hon. Lady would explain the matter, because many hon. Members were not members of the Standing Committee. In Standing Committee, she said:
We expect best value to lead to efficiency savings of 2 per cent. per year in each authority, which more than outweighs any additional costs arising from audit inspection arrangements.
She was obviously talking about global figures and the assumption on which the Bill was drafted was obviously that no additional expenditure from central Government would be necessary in terms of grants to the Audit Commission to cover its expenses.
The right hon. Lady continued:
Additional funding to meet the cost of inspections will come from the revenue support grant or from a direct grant to the commission, and we intend to table a Government amendment to make provision for it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 February 1999; c. 238.]
However, the very fact that the matter is being introduced as an amendment at this late stage in the Bill's proceedings is a confirmation that the Government had not considered that the construction of the Bill would have implications for how it is likely to operate vis-a-vis

local authorities. The right hon. Lady gave the Standing Committee various figures for the cost implications. It would at the least be a courtesy to the House if she explained the cost implications of the money resolution. Obviously, the Audit Commission has a budget of its own, but will the Minister explain the financial implications, in millions of pounds, of approving the money resolution, so that we have some idea of the cost consequences of the Bill? There is plenty of time remaining for the Minister's reply.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but came to participate in the later debate on the various new clauses and amendments to the Bill, for which the House anxiously awaits. However, my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), have pointed out a major constitutional issue that arises from this money resolution. The reason why we have money resolutions is an interesting question. After all, it would have been perfectly possible, over time, for our predecessors to have so arranged matters—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may indeed be fascinating to discuss why we have money resolutions, but if he is to keep in order the hon. Gentleman must address the particular money resolution before the House and the question of expenditure that may be incurred by the Audit Commission.

Mr. Letwin: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was coming to that precise point. The purpose of money resolutions is to draw to the attention of the House the purposes for which money is to be spent and the fact that money is to be spent; otherwise, it would be possible to avoid having money resolutions.
As my hon. Friends have made clear, it is not possible for the House sensibly to discuss whether the money to be spent—in this case, on the Audit Commission—is the right amount of money, or whether money should be spent at all, without having some prior explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made it admirably clear that the Minister and her colleagues were intending that the money resolution should go through on the nod. That would be perfectly appropriate, had the House understood what was going through on the nod from the explanatory notes that would normally have been provided. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope you will not rule me out of order if I make a slight aside—

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Letwin: Of course.

Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend endorsing the concept of something being considered and approved by the House, to use his words, on the nod, if a written explanation has previously been given? Is he seriously suggesting that Members of Parliament should play no part by reading and absorbing the written material and asking questions about it?

Mr. Letwin: I was about to say, in an aside that I hoped you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would think was in order,


that I have some reservations about that general practice. However, it would have been within the normal conventions of the House if the money resolution went through on the nod, had it been understood what the money resolution was about; but for Ministers to move a money resolution and expect it to go through on the nod without that sort of explanation is to subvert the nature of money resolutions as a whole.
I hope that this debate will have not only brought to the attention of the Minister for Local Government and Housing the immediate importance of explaining this particular money resolution, but reminded the Government as a whole of the future importance of ensuring that, when a money resolution is moved and the House has not had previous notice of its contents or of the sum involved—if I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) correctly, that sum could run into hundreds of millions of pounds—it is incumbent on the Minister to begin the debate by making a full statement and explaining to the House what is involved. Otherwise, there is no purpose in having money resolutions.
Our predecessors did not invent money resolutions purely for the purpose of amusing themselves, their successors, or any members of the media who may be observing the proceedings. They are here for a serious purpose, which is to bring to the attention of the House the sums involved so that they can be discussed and their appropriateness properly weighed. That was not done in this case, so I hope that the Minister will now give a full explanation.
I also hope that the right hon. Lady will take back to her Department and to the Treasury the message that we shall pursue the strategy of exposing to maximum debate any money resolution that has not been previously explained and for which the Minister does not come forward with a clear statement at the start of the debate. If Ministers do that, we shall all be spared the tedium of making speeches repeating that point, and the constitutional arrangements that our predecessors so splendidly gave us will be justified and followed in the spirit in which they were intended to be followed.

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): This has been an interesting debate. We might take the implications raised by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) more seriously if he and his hon. Friends had not briefed the media this afternoon about their disruptive tactics—but there we go.
Opposition Members have a view about how the House should address local government issues, and I am interested in that view. I am pleased to explain to the House precisely why this money resolution is required. I was taught that we should pay attention to all parliamentary proceedings—both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. If some of the hon. Members who have spoken had read the Committee's deliberations—not just that part referred to by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—they would have found a full explanation of the way in which we approach such matters. The question asked by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was answered in

Committee, but I know that he intended to speak today, come what may. However, that takes a little of the gloss off his contribution—and we must ensure that everyone knows it.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is responsible for this legislation, is not responsible for Ofsted, the social services inspectorate or for Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the money resolutions relating to those inspectorates are matters for the Departments concerned. A money resolution is required so that funds can be made available from Parliament in respect of the provisions set out in clause 31. Clause 31 provides that where the Bill, by virtue of any provisions within it that have financial implications, leads to the Secretary of State's paying increased sums under other enactments—

Mr. Lansley: Perhaps the Minister will accuse me of misunderstanding again, but how can she say that this money resolution relates only to the Audit Commission because the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has responsibility only for that body when it is a Government money resolution? If the Government intend, through this Bill, to allow expenditure to be incurred by Ofsted or by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, that can be included in the money resolution. If such expenditure is planned, why does it not say so in the money resolution?

Ms Armstrong: The money that Ofsted, the SSI and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Wales need is catered for in the legislation that established and govern those institutions. The clause relates to the ability of the Audit Commission to work effectively with those organisations. [Interruption.] I wish to goodness that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire would stop winking; this is a serious business. [Interruption.] Opposition Members seek a serious response but they treat this issue as if it were a joke. It is public schoolboy humour yet again. I wish that they would grow up.
Clause 31 provides that where the Bill, by virtue of any provisions within it that have financial implications, leads to the Secretary of State's paying increased sums under other enactments, moneys shall be made available from Parliament to meet such increases. It also provides that any costs that the Secretary of State incurs in discharging his functions under the Bill should be met by Parliament.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I was about to call him the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, but the right hon. Gentleman has changed his constituency—now understands the measure. He asked me to attempt to mould his mind, but that would defy anyone. I have heard of his exploits at Glasgow university, where Elvis Presley was his hero and he was the magnificent leader of a tribe of rockers or teddy boys. We look forward to him displaying his teddy boy behaviour today.
Clause 31, however, happens to be important in a number of practical ways. It will allow, for instance, for the provision of funds to best value authorities to meet any new costs in fees for best value inspections which they incur under the Bill. It will also be used to ensure that where best value inspections are funded by central Government grant, moneys can be paid to the Audit Commission for that purpose. It will also allow for the


Secretary of State to be reimbursed for costs that he incurs, for example, by using his intervention powers. Those are three practical, important examples of why the money resolution is important.

Sir Paul Beresford: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way now that she is getting to the facts instead of throwing brickbats that have nothing to do with the resolution. I welcome the fact that she is moving more funds to local government to help councils with proposals that they anticipate will require heavy expenditure, but has she any idea of the costs involved? Will she give us ballpark figures? Is there any way in which the Secretary of State will be able to impose limitations on that expenditure, such as an annual ceiling imposed by order or a percentage-based ceiling?

Ms Armstrong: I cannot, in all honesty, give the hon. Gentleman the figures that he seeks. If I attempted to do so, he would say that they were not believable because we are not in a position to give them. In the same way that we and the previous Government negotiated with local government and the Audit Commission, we shall make the figures clear, and we are discussing with the Audit Commission its expectations of those figures. As the hon. Gentleman has implied, we would need regularly to revise those figures. I assure him that we intend to make public those agreements and to apply the principles of best value to any money involved.

Mr. Jenkin: I am now extremely confused because in Committee, on 9 February, in answer to my question, the Minister said:
We anticipate that the annual costs of a strengthened audit and inspection framework will be in the order of an additional £50 million a year, once the best value framework is fully operational.
When asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) what that £50 million refers to, she replied:
We took account of that in the comprehensive spending review."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 February 1999; c. 243.]
However, we still do not know what that £50 million refers to, and I am sure that if the Minister takes this opportunity to clarify that point, the House will be grateful.

Ms Armstrong: We made clear in Committee precisely what we believe the increased costs will be, but we have not yet agreed the exact balance between the Audit Commission and local government, and we know that it may have to vary in particular circumstances. We want to introduce clear guidelines so that the House and people outside will know what is happening year by year. I honestly cannot give anyone those figures today, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have always tried to be absolutely straight with hon. Members.
It is important that there is a balance between the amount of central Government grant and the amount to be contributed by local government. We discussed that fully in Committee. We discussed the importance of a balance that enabled both elements to be part of the settlement. That is how we intend to proceed.
Clause 31 will enable the introduction of the duty of best value in such a way as to avoid penalising best value authorities in terms of the financial resources available

to them. It will also ensure that the Secretary of State has the resources that he needs properly to discharge his functions in accordance with best value. All parties will therefore be able to meet their legal obligations without fear of suffering financial disadvantage.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 345, Noes 39.

Division No. 125]
[5.21 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Clwyd, Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coaker, Vernon


Allan, Richard
Coffey, Ms Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coleman, Iain


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Colman, Tony


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Connarty, Michael


Atkins, Charlotte
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Austin, John
Corbett, Robin


Ballard, Jackie
Corston, Ms Jean


Barnes, Harry
Cotter, Brian


Barron, Kevin
Cousins, Jim


Battle, John
Cranston, Ross


Bayley, Hugh
Crausby, David


Beard, Nigel
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bennett, Andrew F
Dalyell, Tam


Benton, Joe
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bermingham, Gerald
Darvill, Keith


Berry, Roger
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Best, Harold
Davidson, Ian


Blackman, Liz
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blizzard, Bob
Denham, John


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dismore, Andrew


Borrow, David
Dobbin, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Doran, Frank


Bradshaw, Ben
Dowd, Jim


Brake, Tom
Drew, David


Brand, Dr Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Browne, Desmond
Edwards, Huw


Buck, Ms Karen
Efford, Clive


Burden, Richard
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burgon, Colin
Ennis, Jeff


Burnett, John
Etherington, Bill


Burstow, Paul
Fearn, Ronnie


Butler, Mrs Christine
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Fitzsimons, Lorna



Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Follett, Barbara


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Don (Bath)


Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fyfe, Maria


Chaytor, David
Galloway, George


Chidgey, David
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gardiner, Barry


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
George, Andrew (St Ives)



Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Goggins, Paul


Clelland, David
Golding, Mrs Llin






Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McDonnell, John


Grogan, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hain, Peter
Mclsaac, Shona


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McNamara, Kevin


Hancock, Mike
McNulty, Tony


Hanson, David
MacShane, Denis


Harvey, Nick
Mactaggart, Fiona


Healey, John
McWalter, Tony


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McWilliam, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hepburn, Stephen
Mallaber, Judy


Hesford, Stephen
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marek, Dr John


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hoey, Kate
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Martlew, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Maxton, John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Howells, Dr Kim
Meale, Alan


Hoyle, Lindsay
Merron, Gillian


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mitchell, Austin


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hurst, Alan
Moore, Michael


Iddon, Dr Brian
Moran, Ms Margaret


Illsley, Eric
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morley, Elliot


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Mountford, Kali


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Mudie, George


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Naysmith, Dr Doug


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Oaten, Mark


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
O'Hara, Eddie


Keeble, Ms Sally
Olner, Bill


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
O'Neill, Martin


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Öpik, Lembit


Keetch, Paul
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kemp, Fraser
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Pearson, Ian


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pendry, Tom


Khabra, Piara S
Perham, Ms Linda


Kidney, David
Pickthall, Colin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pike, Peter L


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Plaskitt, James


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pond, Chris


Kirkwood, Archy
Pope, Greg


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pound, Stephen


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Powell, Sir Raymond


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Laxton, Bob
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lepper, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Leslie, Christopher
Prosser, Gwyn


Levitt, Tom
Purchase, Ken


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Quinn, Lawrie


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Radice, Giles


Linton, Martin
Rammell, Bill


Livingstone, Ken
Rapson, Syd


Livsey, Richard
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rendel, David


Lock, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Love, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted


McCabe, Steve
Roy, Frank





Ruane, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Ruddock, Joan
(Dewsbury)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ryan, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Salter, Martin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Sanders, Adrian
Timms, Stephen


Savidge, Malcolm
Tipping, Paddy


Sawford, Phil
Todd, Mark


Sedgemore, Brian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Shaw, Jonathan
Touhig, Don


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Trickett, Jon


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Truswell, Paul


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Wareing, Robert N


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Watts, David


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Webb, Steve


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
White, Brian


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Soley, Clive
Wicks, Malcolm


Southworth, Ms Helen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Spellar, John
(Swansea W)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Willis, Phil


Steinberg, Gerry
Wills, Michael


Stevenson, George
Winnick, David


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Woolas, Phil


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stott, Roger
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wyatt, Derek


Stringer, Graham



Stuart, Ms Gisela
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stunell, Andrew
Mr. Keith Hill and


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Mr. David Jamieson.




NOES


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hunter, Andrew


Baldry, Tony
Johnson Smith,


Bercow, John
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Blunt, Crispin
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Body, Sir Richard
Lansley, Andrew


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Leigh, Edward


Brady, Graham
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Mates, Michael


(Chipping Barnet)
Page, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Randall, John


(Rushcliffe)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Colvin, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Flight, Howard
Viggers, Peter


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Gray, James
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Greenway, John
Yeo, Tim


Grieve, Dominic



Hawkins, Nick
Tellers for the Noes:


Hayes, John
Mr. Eric Forth


Horam, John
and Mr. David Wilshire.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in making grants to the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 4

COORDINATION OF INSPECTIONS, &C.

'.—(1) In arranging for or carrying out—

(a) inspections of best value authorities, or
(b) inquiries or investigations in relation to best value authorities,
a person or body to whom this section applies shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of securing the coordination of different kinds of inspection, inquiry and investigation.

(2) This section applies to—

(a) the Audit Commission;
(b) an inspector, assistant inspector or other officer appointed under section 24(1) of the Fire Services Act 1947 (inspectors of fire brigades);
(c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England;
(d) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales;
(e) a person carrying out an inquiry under section 7C of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (inquiries);
(f) a person carrying out an inspection under section 48 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (inspection of premises used for provision of community care services);
(g) a person conducting an inspection under section 80 of the Children Act 1989 (inspection of children's homes, &c.) or an inquiry under section 81 of that Act (inquiries in relation to children);
(h) a person authorised under section 139A(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (reports on administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit);
(i) an inspector appointed under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 (inspectors of constabulary).

(3) The Secretary of State may by order provide for this section to apply to a person or body specified in the order.'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 95, in clause 12, page 9, line 11, after '(2)' insert
'except that if larger, any excess shall be limited to 10 per cent. of the appropriate scale fee.'.
Government amendments Nos. 7, 19 to 24, 10, 11, 25 and 12.

Mr. Jones: This group contains Government amendments, with the exception of amendment No. 95. New clause 4 and amendments Nos. 95 and 7 relate to the inspection side of best value. Inspection will be an important tool in ensuring that authorities meet their duty of best value.
The Bill gives the Audit Commission new powers to cover areas for which there is no inspection function at present. The commission will work alongside the existing specialist inspectorates—the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Wales and the Office for Standards in Education, its English counterpart; Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services; Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, the social services inspectorate and the benefit fraud inspectorate. All those bodies will need to work with one another, and with the commission, to ensure that the overall inspection system operates smoothly and efficiently. The new clause will ensure that that happens.
Our preferred approach is to build on the voluntary and professional co-operation that already exists between inspectorates. A new inspectorate forum in England and a separate one in Wales will be established, with all the relevant inspectorates as members. The forums will discuss matters of common interest such as methodologies for joint working and, where relevant, programming of inspections. They will facilitate the inspection of cross-cutting themes to respond to the way in which an authority carries out its fundamental performance reviews to meet local priorities. They will also provide a channel of communication between both inspectorates and other interested parties, including the inspected bodies and central Government. A central objective will be to seek to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort and additional burdens on authorities.
In cases where the two forums are unable to provide a clear solution, new clause 4 will enable Ministers in England or the Assembly in Wales to issue guidance to ensure the smooth and efficient operation of the inspection function. Any guidance issued under the new clause will be restricted to ensuring co-ordination such as the programming of inspections of authorities, or how to approach cross-cutting performance reviews.

Mr. David Curry: Under best value, it is up to local authorities to decide what services they inspect and in what order, so there is no prescription about that. The Minister is now saying that there will be a co-ordinating body to bring together the various inspectorates. What does he intend to do to ensure that there is effective co-ordination between what the authorities are doing and the work of the forums? Otherwise, all local authorities could decide to do education to begin with, for example, and there would be a tremendous irregularity, which would mean that many people with little to do for a large part of the time were inundated for the rest of the time. The initiative lies with the local authorities. How does that work?

Mr. Jones: The purpose of the new clause is in part to ensure that we do not get some of the difficulties to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. It would not make sense to end up with a local authority having many inspections at the same time, and another local authority not having any inspections. It would be rather like all the buses turning up at once, rather than being spread over a sensible time. The new clause will help to ensure that we get reasonable co-ordination, so that that unco-ordinated approach does not occur.

Mr. Curry: I shall persist. I agree with what the Minister is trying to do. It makes sense, but the initiative


on what to inspect lies with the local authorities. At county level, for example, they may decide to inspect the education services first. Ofsted inspects the schools, but it does not inspect the way in which the service is delivered at county level. If all the local authorities decide that they want to do education on day one, as it were—I am reminded of my famous question: what do they do at 9 o'clock on Monday morning? —will they not place demands on those services that cannot be met? Will there be some discussion with the local authorities to get some timetabling of the order in which they inspect, so that everyone is busy all the time?

Mr. Jones: We will ask local authorities to deal first with the issues where they believe the greatest difficulty lies. We are trying to ensure that we have a reasonably co-ordinated policy that looks at local authorities sensibly. Because the right hon. Gentleman has taken a constructive part in the Committee, I cannot believe that his question is malevolent. Nevertheless, he is postulating a fairly ridiculous example, which is not likely to occur.

Sir Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones: No, because I want to make some progress. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunities to interrupt later.
New clause 4 also provides an order-making power to ensure that any new inspectorate bodies that may be created can be included in the co-ordination arrangements. The new clause will ensure that inspection of best-value authorities is carried out effectively, so that inspectors' comments can lead to good local services for stakeholders.
Amendment No. 7 is concerned with an important objective of inspection: ensuring that stakeholders are fully informed of the progress of their authorities and that best value authorities can learn from each other's experiences. We think that it will be useful to give the Audit Commission the power to publish not only its own inspection reports, but relevant additional information. The amendment gives the commission flexibility in deciding what to publish, whether that is a full report, part of a report or some of the supporting documentation. That flexibility should ensure that relevant information can be published and aimed at specific audiences. We believe that there is a wider public interest in allowing the commission to publish such best value information, and the amendment would achieve that.
I shall now deal with some of the practical implications of best value. Amendment No. 19 is designed to give the Audit Commission the operational flexibilities that it will need to discharge its best value functions as effectively as possible. The Bill gives the commission important new powers and responsibilities. It is in everyone's interest for the commission to be able to discharge those functions flexibly, making proper use of management structures and the skills of staff. Amendment No. 19, which creates freedom to delegate best value functions, is designed to promote such flexibility. It provides certainty and clarity, so that the commission can ensure that work is done by the right people at the appropriate level.

Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister has partly dealt with the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for

Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was trying to make about flexibility; but, having asked for a committee, we should perhaps also ask for a specific example. In fact, I can give an example. Let us assume that an incompetent authority such as Islington is being inspected for best value, and that—as has happened in the past, before the invention of best value—there is a sudden outcry about a paedophile ring in homes run by social services. Where will flexibility come in? Who will lead? How will the process be integrated? Who will respond? Will the Secretary of State make the ultimate decision about whether to reshuffle the order?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has given an excellent example of why the Bill is necessary.

Sir Paul Beresford: I was trying to be helpful.

Mr. Jones: I know. The hon. Gentleman was helpful in Committee from time to time—and I must take the word of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who said in Committee that he wished to be constructive, and to see best value working for the maximum benefit of local authority services. No doubt we shall see more of that constructive approach this evening.
During the earlier stages of the Bill's progress, we consistently said that we would table amendments giving key players such as the Audit Commission the tools that they need to do their job. Amendment No. 20 is an example. It gives the Audit Commission power to inspect best value authorities, and housing is one of the areas that it will scrutinise. We expect the staff employed by the commission to include specialists, but the commission ought to be able to draw on expertise in other organisations so that it can take a rounded view of authorities' performance.

Mr. Clive Efford: I tabled an amendment on the subject dealt with in Amendment No. 20, but it was not selected for today's debate. However, I should like to draw a comparison between my amendment and Government amendment No. 20—which recognises that local authorities do not operate in a vacuum, but that they have to work with other agencies. I have been attempting to improve the performance of best value authorities, in energy efficiency, by improving their relationships with the Housing Corporation and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not in order to refer to an amendment that has not been selected.

Mr. Jones: Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) can be assured that the Government support his Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill and his Energy Efficiency Bill. However, we cannot debate that in our consideration of the Local Government Bill.
The Government have provided the Audit Commission with the power to inspect best value authorities. It is important that, when appropriate, those authorities are able to utilise the best expert advice. Amendment No. 20 will facilitate such an approach. It will allow, for example, the Housing Corporation in England, at the request of the Audit Commission, to provide advice and assistance to


the commission in relation to the commission's best value functions. In Wales, the Secretary of State performs the functions of the Housing Corporation, and he will be able to provide similar advice and assistance to the commission. That will, when appropriate, enable the commission to supplement its own expertise and knowledge of the housing functions with advice and support from the corporation.

Mr. Curry: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones: No.
There is, however, no question of Housing Corporation staff being involved in the conduct of inspections, which will remain the function of the Audit Commission. The amendment also makes proper provision for the Housing Corporation to be remunerated for any advice and assistance that it provides.

Mr. Curry: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take an active part in the debate, and, later in the debate, he will have an opportunity to speak to the amendments.

Mr. Curry: rose—

Mr. Jones: No, I shall not give way now. In my brief speech on this group of amendments, I have already given way twice to the right hon. Gentleman.
Amendment No. 20 will provide the Audit Commission with added flexibility in the manner in which it exercises its best value functions, with particular regard to the housing function.
Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 are designed primarily to improve the Bill's drafting, and to ensure that the general provisions in clause 24 properly reflect the powers of guidance afforded to the Secretary of State elsewhere in part I of the Bill. That guidance will not always be aimed directly at best value authorities. In certain cases, although dealing with the application of best value to those authorities, the guidance will be aimed at others. An example of that is the Secretary of State's guidance power provided in clause 10, which is a power to issue guidance to the Audit Commission on the way in which it inspects best value authorities. It is an example of guidance that will be issued in respect of best value authorities, rather than to them. The guidance powers provided in new clause 4, on collaboration between inspectorates, is a further example of how the power may be used.
Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 will improve the Bill's drafting and ensure that the scope for guidance, as stated in clause 24, properly reflects the powers of guidance provided elsewhere in the Bill.
I therefore beg to move the amendments.

Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he begged to move the amendments. I do not think that he can move them now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Technically speaking, that is correct; the Minister had only to move new clause 4. However, he is still speaking to the amendments, so I am sure that it was only a slip of the tongue.

Mr. Jones: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We believe that there is a wider public interest in allowing the commission to publish best value information. The amendment would achieve that.
Government amendment No. 24 is designed to ensure that the approach to consultation on guidance is consistent throughout the Bill, regardless of the subject matter that it deals with or the status of the bodies to which it is addressed. Clause 24(2)(c) already provides that before issuing guidance to best value authorities, the Secretary of State or the Assembly must consult them or persons appearing to represent them. Subsection (3) makes similar provisions for consultation with the Audit Commission before guidance is issued in respect of its inspection functions.
Amendment No. 24 is consistent with such an approach. It provides that when the Secretary of State or the Assembly uses the guidance powers under new clause 4 in respect of securing co-ordination of different kinds of inspection, they are to be under a duty to consult first with the persons or bodies that carry out those functions. The amendment gives inspectorate bodies an opportunity to make representations about statutory guidance and its contents before it is issued, similar to that enjoyed by best value authorities.
In Committee, the Government explained in detail their approach to the commencement of the various provisions that introduce elements of the best value framework. Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 25 are technical amendments to ensure that the clauses that were added in Committee are taken into account.
The inspection of services provided by best value authorities is one of the key ways in which the authorities will receive feedback on their performance and in which central Government will be able to monitor the application of the policy. The Bill gives the Audit Commission the power to set a scale of fees for inspection, but to provide flexibility we shall need to pay the commission grants from central funds. The split between grants and fees, like the overall cost, is still under discussion with the commission. Amendment No. 12 makes such payments possible, ensuring that inspection can go ahead.

Sir Paul Beresford: I want to focus briefly on amendment No. 95. As ever, we have tabled it in a helpful frame of mind. I did not realise how helpful we were going to have to be when we recognised the extrapolations governing expenditure under the Bill.
The first half of the Bill is the sweetness and sugar for local authorities. However, the more I looked at the Bill, the more concerned I became—and so did many local authorities—about the expenditure that they were going to pick up. We referred to the problem at length in Committee and deep concerns were expressed. Some of those concerns were supposed to be alleviated by what was new clause 5 and is now clause 12, to which the amendment applies.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) questioned the Minister, the answers were muddled and disconcerting. This evening's debate has enlarged the possibilities. When we were


debating the money resolution, the Minister said that she had no idea of the expenditure or the balance between money given by central Government to the Audit Commission and fees charged to local authorities. Local authorities are not sure how much of the Bill they are going to have to pay for.
Having listened to the Minister's comments on the new clauses and amendments, I am even more concerned, because it looks as though there will be an army of individuals so large that it will cause a bump on the unemployment statistics. I have visions of local authority inspectors, co-ordinators and specialists in the housing commission dotted throughout the country, all of whom will have to be paid. If I were a finance director or the chairman of a local authority finance committee, I would be very concerned about that.
Clause 12 says that there will be a scale of fees for inspection. That seems well and good as far as it goes, but the commission may decide to set that scale of fees to one side, or to increase the fees or decrease them. All local authorities would be delighted if the fees were reduced, but they could go up. In Westminster and many other local authorities, the auditor, on behalf of the Audit Commission, has imposed substantial fees without any check—up to £3 million or £4 million.
Clause 12(4) says:
Before prescribing a scale of fees under this section the Commission shall consult—

(a) the Secretary of State, and
(b) persons appearing to the Commission to represent best value authorities."
That is a figleaf gesture towards local authorities. The commission will think about the issue, but there is no hold over it. When we were debating the money resolution I asked the Minister whether there was a ceiling. We heard some nice phrases, but she said that she could not give us any idea of the total costs. The same applies in this case. We have no idea whether there is a ceiling on the scale of fees for inspections under clause 10.
I raised the issue in Committee, but we have heard nothing about how the expenditure will be held down. We were not told in Committee whether subsection (4) applied to subsection (3). My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon went to great lengths to ascertain whether the Government had any idea about that and whether there would be an opportunity to restrict the open cheque book approach given to the commission. The answer was so inadequate that I was reminded of an Australian phrase—the Minister did not know whether he was Arthur or Martha on the issue.
We have got no further forward. The Government new clauses and amendments have not helped. I hope that the Government are going to rely on amendment No. 95, which would restrict the ability of the commission to top-load the costs to local authorities. As a ballpark figure, I have suggested an upper ceiling of 10 per cent. Without such a hold on expenditure, it will be open to the commission to go way beyond that. The fees will be unpredictable and could be applied retrospectively. The size of the fees could be exceptionally damaging to small local authorities.
The latter half of the Bill also includes two forms of capping: broad capping and specific capping, which can be subjective.
6 pm
Yesterday, we debated a Liberal Democrat motion on council tax increases. The Minister of State spent a considerable time talking about percentage increases, but she presented her case in a fallacious way. If subjective capping can be applied to a small local authority on the basis of large percentage increases, the scale of fees could get out of hand. I know that it is hypothetical and perhaps greatly exaggerated, but the potential exists. Under the Bill—and particularly clause 12—there is no ceiling.
I hope that the Government accept that amendment No. 95 was tabled in a helpful manner. If the Minister is not prepared to accept it, will he explain in his reply to the debate how he intends to alter the Bill—perhaps in another place—so that there will be a ceiling?
I suspect that one approach to the matter may be through secondary legislation. That would be a mistake, as secondary legislation can easily be altered. The Government have made a habit of using secondary legislation behind closed doors to deal with difficult pieces of legislation. If such secondary legislation is brought to the notice of the House, it is prayed against, if that is appropriate.
We need something in the Bill to reassure local authorities that they are not facing an open cheque book arrangement with the Audit Commission which, for the best possible reasons and possibly in the best possible taste, would be able write a cheque on the banks of local authorities.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Part of the temptation on Report is to agree to every Government new clause and amendment as an admission of guilt that they have strayed and have grievously omitted vital provisions. We do not intend to treat today's debate in that way. We recognise that it is a complex Bill and that some of the issues on which we did not receive satisfactory answers in Committee are addressed in the Government amendments. By the same token, it is also legitimate for the Opposition to raise new issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) spoke to amendment No. 95, which is a case in point. In Committee, we discussed at some length how fees to the Audit Commission should be determined and controlled. As with much of the Bill, the fate of local councils is in the hands of the Secretary of State as guidance issued by the Secretary of State will determine the fee scales.
My hon. Friend expressed a simple concern—that the Audit Commission does not provide a service that local authorities can choose to buy, but one similar to that of the liquidator of a business. On the dissolution of a business, the liquidator charges his fees, come what may. It is a monopolistic situation, as most local councils will not have the option of looking for a cheaper quote elsewhere. In most circumstances, my hon. Friend is quite right to insist that the Bill should not write blank cheques to bureaucrats—and that is what they are—allowing them to go about their business at somebody else's expense without any heed to the consequences. That is a great danger.
My hon. Friend's amendment is entirely justified: as soon as the fees hit a certain level, the Audit Commission would effectively be making a loss on the services


provided to a local council and would not recoup their full cost. That dovetails with the Minister's proposal that the Audit Commission should receive a grant from central Government to cover some of the costs. Central Government would then have a role in limiting the activities of the Audit Commission so that it could not do what it wanted willy-nilly, but would be under an obligation to carry out its function efficiently and effectively and to do no more than was required by the Bill.

Sir Paul Beresford: I accept what my hon. Friend is saying, which is interesting. The difficulty is that the taxpayer would fund a central Government grant. During our debate on the money resolution, the Minister of State gave us no indication as to whether there was a ceiling. She said that there would be discussions, but at the end of the day there may need to be a ceiling. We are considering only the local government aspect of the issue, but there is more to come.

Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the Minister who will be replying to the debate heard my hon. Friend's point; I hope that he will address it.
New clause 4 gives the Secretary of State another new power. The Bill already provides a huge number of new powers—on Second Reading we counted 27. The 28th is to issue guidance to co-ordinate
different kinds of inspection, inquiry and investigation".
We welcome the new clause. The Minister said that it would cover matters that are not currently inspected. I would be grateful for examples. In my opinion, the new clause has more to do with the collision between various inspecting bodies that would occur under best value. Until now, the different inspection bodies have had fairly segmented tasks. However the all-embracing scope of best value gives the Audit Commission itself all-embracing scope.
In Committee, we explored the danger that the Audit Commission would be inspecting the same matters as the benefit fraud inspectorate, Ofsted or other bodies involved in inspecting various aspects of local government. Although there are already memorandums of understanding between, for example, the Audit Commission and the benefit fraud inspectorate on how local authorities deal with council tax benefit and housing benefit, we always thought it a little optimistic to expect that system to suffice across the board for eight or nine bodies dealing with complex issues. We drew attention to the risk that authorities could indulge in what might be described as inspectorate arbitrage—similar to regulatory arbitrage—whereby different authorities would play off various inspectorates against each other rather than ensure that there was a seamless web.

Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley
(Sir P. Beresford) drew attention to the costs involved. Will my hon. Friend comment on the effect on the confidence and morale of those in local government who will find a new inspector in every corridor? That is hardly in the spirit of local democracy.

Mr. Jenkin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the all-embracing nature of the intervention powers in

the Bill. New clause 4 underlines how penetrating the inspection regime in local authorities will now be. The new clause is designed to ensure that every single nook and cranny of local government is covered by one inspectorate or another. No stone will be left unturned by the men from Whitehall. The Bill is taking us in that direction.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: My hon. Friend has been a little over-generous, even in his qualified welcome for the new clause. Surely it undermines, and is incompatible with, the Government's objective of breathing new life into local government.

Mr. Jenkin: That remains one of our fundamental objections to the Bill. However, the Bill is likely to become law, and we are in favour of the objectives of best value; it is the methods about which we have expressed distaste. If the Bill becomes law and the all-embracing methodology of inspection, audit and control is to be imposed on local authorities, there must be a framework.
In Committee, we were assured that there would not be a risk of different inspectorates playing off each other. The inspectorate forum, which the Minister mentioned, is meant to ensure reasonable co-operation. The Government have admitted despair about the capabilities of such a forum on its own, and they recognise that some guidance will be necessary.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to address the Bill constructively. However, when he and some of his colleagues criticise the amount of inspection under the Bill, their criticism must be of other parts of the Bill. New clause 4 does not increase inspection; it simply attempts to co-ordinate that inspection so that it proceeds sensibly. I cannot see why Opposition Members would wish to have an unco-ordinated series of inspections, rather than a co-ordinated one.

Mr. Jenkin: The Minister's sensitivity speaks volumes about what he might feel in his heart about the intrusive nature of the Bill. However, I accept what he says. If we are not to have different inspectorates overlapping or missing things out—which is not the intention of the Bill—some co-ordination will be necessary. What was envisaged in Committee was clearly inadequate, so we give the new clause a qualified welcome.
What does the Minister expect the guidance to say? Will it be voluminous, or general? Will it be particular to particular authorities? Another Government amendment widens the scope of the guidance that the Secretary of State can issue in other circumstances. Is that guidance intended to be for different authorities in different circumstances, or is it purely general guidance to deal with all kinds of local authority in all circumstances?
Does the new clause treat the Secretary of State as meaning also the National Assembly for Wales?

Mr. Jones: indicated assent.

Mr. Jenkin: That point has been dealt with, then, but I hope that the Minister will address the previous point.
Government amendment No. 7 does not require the Audit Commission to publish a report—and that is the burden of my complaint. Clause 13(3) says that the Commission
shall send a copy of the report to the authority concerned.
The amendment proposes to add that it
may publish a report and any information in respect of a reports.
The Minister was expansive about the flexibility that the measure would give to the Audit Commission. However, I have a rather different point from that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. Obviously, there must be some way of protecting confidential information, particularly that which relates to personal or distressing circumstances.
6.15 pm
One can imagine circumstances in which there might be pressure on the Audit Commission—possibly from the Secretary of State in a political capacity, or possibly from an affected council. We know plenty of councils that might want to hide things that the Audit Commission might want to put in a report. I am worried that the Audit Commission might come under pressure and that, in cases of real corruption, individuals within it might be caught up in underworld pressure involving threats to life and limb.
Would it not be safer to specify an obligation to publish, but to provide for the specific circumstances and material that should not be published? A general enabling provision, so that the Audit Commission may publish what it considers to be appropriate, could leave the Audit Commission holding a rather hot coal. It would also put it in a political situation—something we should not ask of public servants. The amendment, as tabled, is not satisfactory.
Government amendment No. 19 caused me surprise. It concerns the ability of the Audit Commission to do its job. If it is to carry out its functions, I am staggered that the draftsman took until this point to discover that the Audit Commission itself would not be able to carry out all the functions and might need to delegate to a committee or sub-committee, or to an officer or servant.
If such an amendment has been tabled on Report, it underlines our concern that there are likely to be many other issues in the Bill that are not dealt with. The Government would not claim perfection for the Bill, just as we would not claim perfection for the Opposition. However, for the Minister to take until now to decide that the Audit Commission might require a little outside help is distressing.

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend talks about "a little help". However, I am concerned that the more we look at the Bill, the bigger the "little help" becomes. There is the prospect of an army of helpers, as more than 600 local authorities will all have inspections. An army is waiting to be born.

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend leads me to my next point; who might the helpers be? If the Audit Commission were to delegate to a committee or sub-committee, would it be comprised of employees and/or officers of the Audit

Commission, or would it be an outside body? What about a "servant" of the Audit Commission? Could a servant be a sub-contractor?
It seems to me that the Audit Commission has come to the Secretary of State with a plea for help. He has been given considerable obligations, powers and responsibilities, and he will have to expand his already considerable empire to enable himself to be more efficient. It adds to the impression that the Government are feeling their way down the path of inspection, rather than having a clear view of the way ahead.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Amendment No. 19 would allow the Audit Commission to delegate any of its functions under this part of the Bill, including making recommendations to the Secretary of State that he make a direction, under clause 14, removing a specific function from a local authority. Does my hon. Friend consider it appropriate for the Audit Commission to delegate that specific function?

Mr. Jenkin: It may be worth exploring that excellent point. I do not doubt the bona fide of the Audit Commission, in that it will supervise its functions effectively, but circumstances have arisen in which independent people who have been appointed have taken their own line on individual issues and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley suggested, have run up huge costs. Perhaps in another place it could be considered whether it is appropriate to have that power in the Bill.
Amendment No. 20 probably arose out of the drafting of new clause 4. It is about filling in the gaps and providing for the cost of additional advice for the Audit Commission. The odd thing about it is that, if I have understood it correctly, it also provides for additional fee generation for the Audit Commission. It is a complex amendment, and one on which my more experienced colleagues may want to question the Minister.
We accept that amendments Nos. 21 to 23 are broadly technical, but they widen the Secretary of State's power to issue guidance under clause 24. It is one thing for the Secretary of State to have the power to issue guidance
to best value authorities…or to one or more particular authorities",
but quite another to issue it to other bodies "in respect of those authorities.
I am not sure that the Minister gave us a full explanation why that additional power is strictly necessary. Any guidance issued to the Audit Commission or any other inspectorate is provided for under another part of the Bill. We thought that this part was purely about local authorities.
What are the "bodies concerned" in amendment No. 24? Are they the bodies to which guidance is being issued? If so, why does not the amendment say so? The Minister referred to the bodies that carry out the functions, but "bodies concerned" is a vague and unsatisfactory formulation. Are we talking about bodies to which the guidance might refer or bodies to which the guidance is directed?
The Minister for Local Government and Housing accused us of disruptive tactics when we discussed the


money resolution, but I regarded her answers as unhelpful. We are still all at sea about the Bill's exact money implications. In Committee, she said:
We anticipate that the annual costs…will be in the order of an additional £50 million a year".
We do not understand whether that is to come from fee generation or from Government grant. The Minister also took it upon herself to say:
We negotiated this through the comprehensive spending review.
She cannot have it both ways. Either the Government are all at sea as to the money consequences, or they are not. Amendment No. 12 does not clarify any of the issues, but it provides the power for the Secretary of State to provide the grant in aid to the Audit Commission to cover unspecified costs. That is entirely unsatisfactory.

Mr. Lansley: The Minister chided me for not looking for answers that were supposedly in the Official Report of the Standing Committee, but the answers to my points were not there. The most charitable account of what happened is that, in Committee, the Minister was saying that the increased cost of the best value audit and inspection framework would be about £50 million a year, which would be money well spent if it generated savings through greater efficiency; but she was talking about costs that would be met through the revenue support grant or local authority expenditure, within the comprehensive spending review, whereas now Ministers are seeking to take powers, under amendment No. 12, to make grants to the Audit Commission, which was not contemplated in Committee.

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Yes, it was.

Mr. Jenkin: With the greatest respect, I must correct my hon. Friend. I do not know why the Minister finds it so amusing, but she drew attention to the deficiency when she said:
Additional funding to meet the cost of inspections will come from the revenue support grant or from a direct grant to the commission, and we intend to table a Government amendment to make provision for it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 February 1999; c. 238–43.]
I do not regard it as satisfactory that we were left in that position in Committee and that we are only now discussing that amendment.
We were told that the overall cost of inspection would be about £50 million a year—a suspiciously round figure—but the Government are absolutely no nearer to working out the public expenditure consequences for the Exchequer. Will 10 per cent. or 90 per cent. have to be provided centrally? They will not or cannot say. I do not think that they have the foggiest idea, which suggests that the whole process of best value is still very much an unknown quantity.

Sir Paul Beresford: When we discussed the money resolution, we had a vague response from the Minister about the fact that money would be paid to the Audit Commission and some would go through local authorities. There was no clear explanation of how the grant would be worked out, whether the standard spending assessment applied or whether the process would be as subjective as

many of the Government's other actions in relation to local authorities. Favoured local authorities do well, but others get artificially lambasted, as some were last night.

Mr. Jenkin: I entirely agree. That underlines how the Bill is very much an enabling Bill. The Government want to take powers without being specific about how they intend they should be exercised, or what the cost will be. We find that entirely unsatisfactory.
The Minister confirmed that, for the purposes of new clause 4, the Secretary of State is equivalent to the National Assembly for Wales. Why, therefore, does amendment No. 12 make specific and separate provision for the Secretary of State and for the National Assembly for Wales?

Jackie Ballard: I shall be somewhat briefer than the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). We Liberal Democrats are surprised at the level of Conservative concern for local democracy this evening. I am sure that we shall have plenty of time tonight in which to write a dissertation on whether that concern would remain if ever the Conservatives returned to central Government.
We welcome new clause 4 and its recognition of the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. It is, if I may use the term, a more joined-up approach to inspection. I hope that the Minister may elaborate a little more on progress towards establishing the inspectorate forum.
Government amendment No. 24 is especially welcome as it extends consultation on guidance.
We accept much of the Conservative argument about the extra cost of audit inspections for local authorities and about how the authorities feel powerless to control or influence charges. That is also a problem for small parish councils for which the audit process charges can be quite out of proportion to budgets. If there is a Division, we shall support amendment No. 95.
Government amendment No. 20 requires the Housing Corporation to assist the Audit Commission, establishing the precedent of placing duties on the Housing Corporation in the Bill's long title. I welcome that, but I feel that the amendment would have been more useful if it had also required the Housing Corporation to issue energy efficiency guidance to its members. To place such a duty would clearly be in order, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that such an amendment would be looked on sympathetically in another place.

Mr. Curry: The trouble with the Liberal Democrats is that they have never taken part in central Government. Coming exclusively from local government, they do not appreciate the need for a sensible balance between the two. They tend to say that whatever local government wants is right, and whatever central Government want is wrong. The world does not work that way. We must seek a sensible relationship between the two that recognises the overriding obligations of central Government while still allowing meaningful freedom for local government. The Bill does not take us towards that objective.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) wanted the


Bill to deal with energy efficiency, she was capable of tabling an amendment? To plead with the Government for such an amendment when she has not tabled one seems an extraordinary way in which to scrutinise the Bill.

Mr. Curry: I hope that if she had tabled such an amendment, it would not have been selected.

Jackie Ballard: For information, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Essex that if they examine the amendments tabled, they will find that such an amendment was tabled, although it was not, for technical reasons, in my name. It was tabled, but it was not accepted for debate.

Mr. Curry: The amendment was not selected. No doubt it was outside the Bill's scope, or had been thoroughly debated in Committee.
New clause 4 is welcome because we sought effective co-ordination between inspections. The trouble is that it illustrates two things: first how extensive the inspections are, and, secondly, the practical difficulty of co-ordination and the burden that it will place on the co-ordinator. New clause 4 lists the inspections to take place, including the classics such as Ofsted, the police service, the fire service and the social services. It also includes the inspectorates dealing with community care, the Children Act 1989 and benefit fraud. It further includes the Audit Commission itself.
May I suggest a future candidate for the list? Under the Government's food standards legislation, the Food Standards Agency will have powers to inspect local authority health monitoring, and will be able to take over its running, put it out to tender or ask another local authority to do it. That is highly analogous to what happens in the Bill.

Ms Sally Keeble: Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that many inspection functions were created by the Government in whom he was a Minister? Presumably, he could have sought greater co-ordination. Why did he not do so then, instead of complaining about the Government now?

Mr. Curry: Some inspections are being set up by the Government. It is not my purpose to say that inspection functions are not necessary. However, there comes a time to take stock of how functions can be discharged and the costs of providing a local authority interface with the functions.
My concern is the practical working of inspections. The Secretary of State will issue guidance, and the Minister has hinted that it will put responsibility on the Audit Commission as the co-ordinating body. I understood the Minister to say that it would be light in its operation. It is not intended to be institutional, to set up committees, or to need a headquarters or a chief executive. It will all be done by some gentlemen's agreement, on the basis of common sense.
However, the sheer number of inspectorates involved raises the fear that the Audit Commission, which has a specific role involving the health service and local authorities, will find the task of controlling, monitoring

and co-ordinating inspectors to be increasingly time consuming. Its own important functions have contributed enormously to local government's measurement of services. The Government rely on the commission as the linchpin of those services.

Sir Paul Beresford: The other aspect raised by the Minister was flexibility. My right hon. Friend is questioning how the organisation will operate. Flexibility must be taken into account. Inspections may be co-ordinated and organised before it is revealed—as in the example of Islington—that there is a paedophile ring in children's homes. Will all the inspections be dropped in such a case? Where does flexibility come in? Who pays?

Mr. Curry: That is precisely the problem I want to explore. Local authorities are responsible for initiating the best value sequence of inspectorates. The Government do not intend to prescribe the order in which it will happen.

Ms Armstrong: For the record, let me say that the local authority will be responsible for promulgating the review programme, not the inspection programme, which is external. The internal responsibility of the authority will be to review both through and across service functions within a five-year period.

Mr. Curry: The Minister is right, but she demonstrates the problem rather than resolving it. If the local authority's job is to identify which areas it wishes to be inspected, the danger is that many local authorities will seek to make inspections of the same services at the same time. A county council's main functions are education, social services and roads. If all county councils decide—as I suspect many will—that they want to start with the education services, especially after the settlement this year which has left them severely underfunded—[Interruption.] That is no longer in dispute, despite the fact that Ministers giggle whenever the council tax is mentioned in the House.

Mr. Lansley: Given that authorities themselves will undertake performance review activities and inspectorates of various kinds will make inspections, does my right hon. Friend agree that the interrelationship between them is important for those who are trying to manage the services? It is, therefore, curious that the local authorities will not be included in the co-ordination function in new clause 4, in the same way that the inspectorates have to agree between themselves.

Mr. Curry: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a real danger that the two ships will pass in the night—the inspectors on their way to the local authorities and the local authorities on their way to the inspectors. I do not minimise the problems of the co-ordination that the Audit Commission will be asked to perform. I am a great fan of the commission. The Conservative Government set it up, and the Labour Opposition of the time voted against it, but it has now become one of the central figures in the Labour Government's firmament. However, I do not wish the commission's central functions to be disfigured, clouded or overwhelmed by a co-ordinating function. It is dangerous for any organisation to ask people to co-ordinate things rather than to do things. Many people find that the job of co-ordinator turns out to be the biggest


non-job in any organisation, because the people one wishes to co-ordinate are busy doing what they have to do and often resent co-ordination that is thrust upon them.

Mr. Hunter: Would it not be better if the energy of Government was directed at improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the autonomous inspection bodies rather than the creation of an overseeing, co-ordinating apparatus, which may not improve the performance of those autonomous bodies?

Mr. Curry: I have to tell my hon. Friend that, in Committee, it was the Opposition who spotted the dangers of the absence of co-ordination and the difficulties that local authorities would have in coping with it. We need to be assured that local authorities will be involved in the process of co-ordination, so that they are not being co-ordinated at, but co-ordinated with; otherwise, the system will not work.

Ms Keeble: The right hon. Gentleman is ridiculing a process that is very important to local government. For example, proper co-ordination between those inspecting children's services—the social services inspectorate, the police and the Audit Commission—might have detected the problem of paedophile rings in children's homes, which the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) mentioned.

Mr. Curry: I was not aware that I was ridiculing the process at any stage, especially as it was the Opposition who raised the problem in Committee. My concern is that if the Audit Commission is given those powers, its functions will be at risk because it will have to devote so much time to the co-ordinating function. I wish to ensure that the local authorities are involved in the co-ordination so that they are able to timetable what they want to do, and the Secretary of State is aware of that. In that way, the system could work effectively. I shall be interested to see the guidance that the Secretary of State issues on that point and, in a few years' time, what resources the Audit Commission has received to devote to the task.
The Minister referred to Government amendment No. 20. He said that the Government intended to permit the Audit Commission to draw on the expertise of the Housing Corporation, but not to have people seconded to help with inspections. I agree that local authority housing services should be inspected as they have been some of the most chronically inefficient services, partly because many councillors have always liked the patronage that running a large housing estate has brought with it. When we were in government, we experienced resistance to the transfer proposals, and I am delighted that this Government are pressing ahead with those proposals. Indeed, the present transfer proposals are the most extensive we have seen. The age of social housing is passing, not least because fewer and fewer people want to live in social housing—a fact that the Government have registered.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Simply because housing stock is transferred and is no longer under the direct control of local authorities, it does not cease to be social housing.

Mr. Curry: That is true; it depends to whom the transfer is made. An increasing number of transfers are

made to local housing companies, in which the local authority retains a stake. However, the classic transfer is to housing associations. Why cannot the Audit Commission draw on the expertise of the housing association movement? It may be able to, but that is not clear. The Housing Corporation, however good it is—and it is very good—does not actually run any stock, although its equivalent in Scotland does. The Government should draw on the expertise of the housing associations, especially as the largest of them have volumes of stock exceeded only by some four local authorities in England. Some of the big northern housing associations have far more stock than the majority of local authorities and, given that the inspections are about the management on the ground, including their expertise would be a useful innovation. I hope that the Minister, when he winds up, will say that the Audit Commission, as well as drawing on Housing Corporation expertise, will be able to reach out to the housing association sector—which is part of the private sector in its legal and financial status, but in practice is part of the social housing movement—to draw on its expertise.
I welcome new clause 4. Co-ordination is important, but it should be understood that saying, "We are going to co-ordinate", does not necessarily achieve what we want. The actual burden may be considerable and it is important that it does not blur the key functions and blunt the point of the Audit Commission's activities. I hope that the Minister will review the situation from time to time to see how co-ordination works in practice, so that co-ordination does not get in the way of the inspection process.

Mr. Fallon: This group of amendments typifies the tack-handed approach of the Government to local government. First, they overlay the councils with the best value framework in the most bureaucratic way possible, and then they have to come back to the House after realising all the implications for staffing, resources and co-ordination. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that co-ordination is important, but it is the Government who created the mess and who now want to claim the credit for amendments that will help to co-ordinate the process.
I wish to speak specifically to Government amendment No.19, which caught my eye when it was first tabled, and I wondered whether there was a precedent for it. Can the Minister tell us whether the Audit Commission is empowered in exercising any of its other functions to recruit people who are not members of it? With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), that is the key point. The amendment will allow people to participate in the work of the Audit Commission who are not commissioners, officers or servants of the commission. Before we agree to the amendment, we must be clear about who those people would be, how they would be selected, what role they would perform and how they would be trained.
I am grateful to the Minister for lifting the veil a little. He spoke about management and flexibility of staff, and referred to the staff of the commission. However, we are discussing people who will not be on the staff of the commission: amendment No. 19 provides for people to work for the commission who will not be on its staff. What role will they have? Will it be an executive role? Will they be part of the administrative audit arrangements? Will they have a supervisory role?


Will they be delegates of the commission, or will they be merely advisers, as the Minister seemed to imply when he referred to the need for specialist advice, using the Housing Corporation as an example? Obviously, specialist audit advice can be brought in by the commission for any of its functions, but, in respect of the amendment, we need to clarify the function of those who are not members of the Audit Commission. Will they have full administrative functions and work alongside the usual staff, or will they simply be advisers?
Will the Minister tell us how those people will be employed? Will they be paid? Will they be temporarily recruited from other audit bodies, or will they be people with local government experience, such as former local government officers? Will they be trained? As I understand it, when they begin their work, they will have all the authority of the Audit Commission, so we need to know a little more about the terms, conditions and status of their employment.
The Bill seems to be an inspectors' charter. I am worried about its effect not only on local councils—explained so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford)—but on the inspectors themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon reminded us, the Audit Commission was set up by the Conservative Government. He pointed out that the commission's work should not be sidetracked into work of co-ordination, but under the amendment, its work would be dissipated and subcontracted to other people. It is important for the morale and direction of the commission that its functions should not be scattered among a host of advisory committees or supervisory boards that include some people from the commission and others recruited only for specific tasks. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will go a little further on amendment No. 19 than he did in his opening remarks.

Mr. Hunter: I regret that I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have carefully studied the reports of its 15 sittings and believe that I understand the main arguments that were deployed.
I want to restrict my comments to new clause 4. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will not consider me to be too off-message if my view is slightly less generous than his. The Minister urged us to welcome the new clause, but we should do no such thing. Its inclusion in the Bill at this late stage may be regarded as an acknowledgement that the Government were wrong in the first place, although I acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex would not want us to emphasise that point too strongly.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Member explain to the House what he believes to be the purpose of the Committee stage of a Bill? Does he think it deplorable for a Government to introduce amendments as a result of discussions in Committee?

Mr. Hunter: That intervention does not amount to much. All hon. Members are aware of the integral importance of the Committee and Report stages of a Bill. My argument is that a provision so essential to the co-ordination of the Government's strategy was omitted and that we have had to wait until this late stage for it to

be introduced. That is the only point I wanted to make. As for the wider argument, I shall not detain the House for long and shall summarise my position on the matter.
In so far as new clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to give guidance on the manner in which the Audit Commission and others carry out their inspection of local authority services, including the schools inspectorate, the social services inspectorate, inspectors of constabulary appointed under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 and others, it confirms some of my worst fears about the Bill. I believe that those fears are shared by some of my hon. Friends. The Bill's origin forms the criterion by which I judge it. The Labour party's pre-election commitment was that it would breathe new life into local government and that is the sole criterion by which the new clause and the Bill as a whole should be judged. That is a laudable objective and one to which Conservative Members would subscribe, but the tragedy is that the Bill in general and new clause 4 in particular will have precisely the opposite effect.
I acknowledge that new clause 4 defines that which previously lacked definition and clarifies that which was previously unclear in the Bill, but that does not make it any more acceptable. The need for greater definition and clarification was convincingly illustrated in Committee by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and although I admit that the new clause removes some of the Bill's original ambiguity, in reality it focuses attention on the fact that a tranche of new powers will be handed to the Secretary of State, and that an onerous and bureaucratic inspection regime will be created by the Bill. To quote from the new clause, that is what
securing the coordination of different kinds of inspection, inquiry and investigation
will mean in practice.
New clause 4 extends the Secretary of State's powers to intervene and underlines the powers already given to the Secretary of State by the Bill. The Government have moved a long way from the 1997 general election manifesto commitment that
Local decision-making should be less constrained by central government, and also more accountable to local people.
The reverse will be true under the Bill in general and the new clause in particular. Local decision making will become more, not less, constrained by central Government and local government will become more, not less, accountable to central Government and less accountable to local people. Not one iota of the Bill—and certainly nothing in new clause 4—honours the Labour party's pre-election commitment to the decentralisation of power.
7 pm
The horrific reality—I believe that it is horrific—is that new clause 4 extends the power and influence of the Secretary of State into the inspection of areas of local administration that are best left clear of his ad hoc guidance. The Audit Commission, the fire services inspectorate, Ofsted, the social services inspectorate, persons carrying out inspections under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, housing benefit and council tax benefit administrators, and inspectors of constabulary will all be required to respond to the interventionist diktat of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's scope for intervention will not be


limited to only those bodies listed in new clause 4; he will have the power to extend his influence to other named bodies. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex opened his speech on Second Reading with the words:
If the Bill promotes light, truth and harmony in local government, consensus, partnership and a better community spirit, we will be right behind it."—[Official Report, 12 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 133.]
I would argue that new clause 4 will help to achieve none of those desirable objectives.
The Bill was bad enough prior to the appearance of new clause 4. The draconian powers the Bill already gives the Secretary of State will mean that the best run councils will live in fear of a Secretary of State exercising those new, wide-ranging, discretionary powers sanctioned elsewhere in the Bill. However, the addition of new clause 4, which obliges the various inspecting bodies and persons to have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance, means that the Secretary of State will, of his own volition, make up the rules by which the authorities shall be judged; and he will have the power selectively and subjectively to judge those authorities, to intervene and, in the last resort, to take over. So much for the principled manifesto declaration that is the starting point of the Bill:
Local decision-making should be less constrained by central government, and also more accountable to local people.

Mr. Eric Forth: I confess that, at this stage in the debate, my sympathies lie more with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) than with my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Even at this early stage in what promises to be lengthy deliberation, I have heard more than once and understand full well that it was my right hon. and hon. Friends who raised these issues in Standing Committee and persuaded the Government to table their own new clause on Report—so far, so good, one might think. However, I share the reservations expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, although for different and what some might call more mechanistic reasons.

Sir Paul Beresford: As one of the few hon. Members present who was a member of the Standing Committee, I should emphasise that our having made a request for co-ordination on which the Government have acted was a last-gasp stand. We pointed out to the Government that, if they were going to implement their proposals, there was a plethora—an army—of organisations that needed either to be dealt with or co-ordinated with. It was not a case of having a choice, because the original choice was a bad one.

Mr. Forth: I accept that argument; however, my concern is that my hon. Friend is adding to the army by laying an entire new officer corps on top of the army in an effort better to co-ordinate its actions. As my remarks unfold, he will learn that I doubt whether that will be effective.

Sir Paul Beresford: I note my right hon. Friend's point. If I had a choice, I would choose to hope that the Government would take the hint, reduce the numbers and try to pull everything together. That is the point that we tried to get across to the Minister when we asked him how

he, the Secretary of State and the plethora would be likely to react. If my right hon. Friend were to suggest that we reduce the number of inspectorates and co-ordinate their armies by pulling them together, I would certainly support him.

Mr. Forth: That may be an argument worth pursuing, although it is difficult to see how we could do so at this stage in our proceedings without going out of order. Perhaps it is a matter for another place to consider.
My first concern arises from that part of new clause 4 which states:
a person or body to whom this section applies shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State for the purposes of securing the coordination of different kinds of inspection, inquiry and investigation.
Here is our old friend, guidance; immediately in my mind arises uncertainty about whether that will genuinely be guidance, or whether it will in some way be mandatory or binding on the bodies concerned. Real guidance may be given and even received in good faith, but then not followed to any great extent. The core dilemma at the heart of this group of amendments is that if the legislation is to be effective, the "guidance" will have to be mandatory, but if it is merely guidance in its true sense, the legislation might not be effective at all. That is an unresolved difficulty that lies at the heart of the proposals.

Mr. Fallon: If the guidance is mandatory, that cuts clean across the independence of some of the bodies listed in new clause 4 which were set up to be independent not only of local government, but of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has anticipated my next point, so I am grateful to him for leading me naturally to it. Looking at the list of the bodies covered by new clause 4, which were helpfully listed by the Minister in his opening speech and are even more helpfully listed in the new clause, I wonder how far bodies so different in their nature and mission—a ghastly word—will be subject to being brought together in a co-ordinated fashion, given their independence and their integrity, which we should respect at all times, and, more importantly, given the differences in the work that they do.
One need only consider the work carried out by the range of bodies covered, from inspectors of fire services, through Ofsted—a body with which I am more familiar—to inspectors of social services, children's homes and social security fraud. Each of those bodies is so different from the others in its objectives, the way in which it works and the responsibilities it discharges that I wonder to what extent any mechanism could draw all of them together and co-ordinate them in the way that both the Government and my right hon. and hon. Friends want.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Was it not the Prime Minister himself who said that he wanted to replace what he regarded as a feudal system of government in this country with a Napoleonic system, which implies administrative tutelage? Is not what appears in the new clause a serious matter, in that it suggests that there will be administrative tutelage through bodies that were previously thought to be independent?

Mr. Forth: I wonder whether that is the case and I hope that my hon. Friend, who has a better grasp of


history than I, will explore that argument later—I certainly could not do it justice. My own points to some extent reflect the reverse side of his argument.
Having made it clear that all of the bodies listed in new clause 4 are extremely different in nature, I now turn to the aspirations the Minister expressed in his opening remarks. He spoke about voluntary and professional co-operation, which is all good stuff. I am amazed that he did not say "partnership", as it is about the only buzzword that he did not use—oh no, he did not mention "boom and bust", which might have been too difficult for him to get into that speech; nevertheless, I am sure that we shall hear the phrase later.
The Minister talked about voluntary and professional co-operation and, crucially, about an inspectorate forum, which he said would examine the methodologies, programmes and cross-cutting themes—another ghastly modern phrase that I do not fully understand. We are beginning to see a picture emerging of how the Government imagine the process will work. A forum will bring together very different bodies—the fire people, education people, children's home people and the benefit fraud people—that will sit around and discuss their methodologies, programmes and cross-cutting themes.
An optimist might imagine that that process could result in a co-ordinated approach or unified thrust. However, a pessimist—which I tend to be; after nearly nine years in Government, how could I be anything else—might worry about what would happen if the bodies could not agree about methodologies, programmes and cross-cutting themes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said, given their independence and integrity and the very different nature of their work and experiences, what will happen if those bodies cannot agree about methodologies, programmes and cross-cutting themes? Are we still talking about a framework of guidance or about the Napoleonic approach that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned?

Mr. Fallon: New clause 4(1) makes clear what must happen: the bodies must have regard to the guidance. My right hon. Friend said that there might be confusion. However, the Secretary of State might simply say that there should be no inspection of school services in London boroughs in the year leading up to the borough council elections.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend obviously believes that the guidance would include that level of detail—

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: indicated dissent.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has an answer to his question, and I gather from the Minister's body language that the answer is no.

Mr. Jones: I hesitate to intervene because the right hon. Gentleman is enjoying himself in his usual manner. I ask him to try to be serious for a moment and to consider

the important issues that Governments of all colours must consider. If we are trying to ensure that less children are abused—

Mr. Jenkin: Fewer children.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman corrects my grammar. The important point is that fewer children should be abused. It is extremely important to co-ordinate the work of various inspection bodies so that they can co-operate and attain a common theme rather than work alone.

Mr. Forth: I do not see how fewer children will be abused if the fire service is included in the discussions of the inspectorate forum. That is my point. Unless we can identify a common approach—[Interruption.] The Minister thinks that, because he comes to the Dispatch Box and mentions the protection of children, that is the end of the argument. That is not good enough. I am trying to make a different point: will the inspectors of children's homes and the fire service have a sufficient commonality of purpose to be useful in forum discussions? I have my doubts about that.
I can go further than that. Even if there were a degree of commonality, what would happen if the bodies disagreed? We know what will not happen because the Minister has told us. So an element of doubt remains as to whether the forum will be of any positive use or value.

Mr. Fallon: My right hon. Friend has been extremely generous in giving way. It is not simply a question of confusion. The Minister revealed in his intervention that he is seeking a common theme for the forum. He wants to impose on behalf of the Secretary of State, a common theme on bodies that are independent of the Secretary of State and that have been set up as independent bodies by the House.

Mr. Forth: That is the more sinister interpretation that could be made of Ministers' motives. Although the Minister tried in his opening remarks, he has not provided a sufficient level of detail of his thinking or of the motivation behind the new clause to enable us to understand how the process will work. I made notes, as best I could, of the Minister's speech. I paid close attention to him—even though he is not paying close attention to me—in an attempt to understand what was in his mind. It would appear that I have failed, as has my hon. Friend. There is an unresolved problem with the inspectorate forum as to how effective it will be and whether it can realistically achieve the objectives that the Minister has set for it.
7.15 pm
We then come to the vexed question of the involvement of local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and other hon. Friends raised that issue, which remains unresolved. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in his reply that local authorities will be subsumed in new clause 4(3), which states:
The Secretary of State may by order provide for this section to apply to a person or body specified in the order.
That sounds very much like our old friend the all-embracing, sweeping-up provision that says, "If we haven't already thought of it in new clause 4(2),


paragraphs (a) to (i), we will put it in subsection 3, into which we can insert almost anything". That might be where local authorities will be addressed because the Bill does not mention them anywhere else that I can see. That matter has already concerned my hon. Friends and I hope that the Minister will provide comprehensive reassurances in that regard.
Will the Minister also explain how he views the relationship between inspecting bodies, which are listed helpfully in new clause 4, and local authorities, which are in a completely different category? If they are to sit around the table at the inspectorate forum—we do not yet know whether they will—it will add another complication to the methodology of that forum that may undermine its possible unity of purpose even more than I have suggested.
The Minister also introduced our old friends, who I thought had long since departed the political scene but who have been resuscitated for the purposes of this debate—the stakeholders. They have made a dramatic reappearance and will apparently form a key part of the process that new clause 4 will introduce. The Minister said that the stakeholders would learn from each other's experiences, which develops an earlier theme involving methodologies, programmes and cross-cutting themes. One must assume that the fire service will learn from the experience of the inspectors of children's homes and that the benefit fraud inspectors will learn from the experience of Ofsted; otherwise the exercise has no point. I am at a loss to understand quite how that will happen and what the value will be for the different bodies.
A new bureaucracy will be created—albeit in response to my right hon. and hon. Friends' requests in Committee. I hope that they are beginning to regret those requests because there will be an additional army to supervise the existing army to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) referred. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends are thoroughly ashamed of themselves because they have let a bureaucratic genie out of the bureaucratic bottle. I shudder to think what the cost will be.
To allow matters to proceed apace—I sense that several of my hon. Friends are itching to contribute—I shall refer briefly to amendment No. 19, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks also mentioned. I referred to that amendment briefly in my comments on the money resolution, but it is appropriate to return to the matter now. The amendment demonstrates what might—again, we seek the Minister's guidance—be a radical new departure for the Audit Commission. The amendment says:
The Audit Commission may delegate any of its functions under this Part to … a committee or sub-committee established by the Commission (including a committee or sub-committee including persons who are not members of the Commission)".
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks raised that point, and he was right to do so.
The amendment goes on to refer to
an officer or servant of the Commission",
but I am not too worried about that. However, when we start referring to
persons who are not members of the Commission".
I wonder if we are breaking new ground. How confident is the Minister that moving in that direction will enable us to ensure the continuing high quality and integrity of the Audit Commission's work, with which we have all become familiar over the years?
The amendment would "delegate" functions to committees or sub-committees—we are already talking about one or two removes from the commission—and, further, to persons who are not members of the commission. That provides the potential for a dilution of the quality of the Audit Commission's work which may begin to endanger the whole process. I tentatively suggest that we are entitled to have that worry.
I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate that there are sufficient questions and anxieties about the group of amendments to explain why I have not yet been able to join my right hon. and hon. Friends in welcoming it. I remain to be convinced by the Minister about the additional or best value, or whatever phrase one wants to use, that the amendments would bring to the Bill. I shall, as ever, listen carefully to the Minister's reply. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and I share the same unhappiness and reservations about the amendments, and unless the Minister does a lot better than he did when he spoke to the amendments, I shall remain unconvinced of their merits.

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to add a few words on subjects that have not so far been fully addressed in the debate on this group of amendments.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for correcting me on amendment No. 12, which relates to the making of grants to the Audit Commission. My hon. Friend will correct me again if I am wrong, but I think that I am correct in saying that two questions were raised in the debate on the money resolution which also arise on amendment No. 12 and to which satisfactory answers have not been given. The first, which has been mentioned by several of my hon. Friends, is what proportion of the increased cost of the inspection and audit framework—which has been estimated at £50 million—will be defrayed through grants to the Audit Commission and what proportion will be met through the normal mechanisms for funding local government activity, and then, presumably, recovered by the Audit Commission through fees that are charged.
The second question is my own and I may have missed an answer being given on this point. It is still not clear whether the Secretary of State will accept costs by making a direction under clause 14 to take over an authority's specific functions or whether those costs or those of any nominated person under that clause will wholly be defrayed by the local authority to which such a direction refers. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer that point.
I want first to deal with new clause 4 and then with amendment No. 19. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex that it is helpful that in Committee Ministers took note of a lacuna that was identified in the Bill, in that it does not contain an mechanism for adequate co-ordination between inspection authorities, and they have dealt with that in new clause 4. However, it will be useful if we examine for a moment the position not only from the standpoint of the inspection authorities, but on the basis of the exchange, to which I contributed, that took place between the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon
(Mr. Curry). That exchange concerned the standpoint of the local authority, the services that it provides and the manner in which it tries to keep to the spirit of the best


value framework. It is generally accepted on both sides of the House that we are trying to make a success of that concept.
The starting point for an authority trying to manage its services effectively is that, increasingly, it is having to manage its cycle of activity under the best value framework in relation to other cycles. For example, the local performance plan is to be produced on an annual basis in co-ordination with a consultation cycle—part of the best value concept is that services should be provided on the basis of adequate consultation—a budget cycle and an audit cycle. It must also be co-ordinated with data collection and publication of performance indicators. The local performance plan must therefore orientate itself around a series of annual cycles. Such co-ordination is difficult to achieve and will pose management and other challenges for the services concerned.
In addition, the authority will have to consider how it undertakes adequately its best value programme of reviews. It is intended that over five years, each part of the authority's services should be reviewed, starting with the weakest. That is not simple. It is clear to me, not least from reading the document, "Better By Far: Preparing for Best Value", which was helpfully produced by the Audit Commission last December, that an authority that conducts that programme conscientiously will have to tackle rather difficult issues. In the best value pilots that have been conducted so far, the mechanism of a service-based review has conventionally been used. That is to say that the education service, social services department or housing service was reviewed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to cross-cutting themes, which are another way of conducting such a review. For example, a local authority might ask itself, "By what mechanism are we setting out to comply with the duties placed on us to maximise community safety?" That cuts across a number of services, hence the concept of cross-cutting themes in trying to review services to find out whether they provide best value.
Equally, one could approach the review on an area basis. One could examine all the services provided by an authority in a particular area and find out how they interact. That might be useful. I remember that in the debate on unitary authorities, when county councils were defending their right to exist rather than be broken up, they were conscious of their increased need in future to review the management of their services and to provide a better service for a given area. An area-based review might be peculiarly appropriate for authorities that have had that debate in the past.
I have fixed on customer focus as a particularly useful method of review. It has been one of the lesser-used methods in best value pilots and in the past when local authorities have tried to meet best value objectives. Such a review would, for example, deal with children in local authority homes. I remember participating in the report of the Select Committee on Health about children looked after by local authorities. In such cases, the customer focus review is terribly important; otherwise, as we know, the failings of local authorities—I shall not elaborate on them—in accurately co-ordinating the relationship

between their education service and their social services may lie at the heart of their failure to provide best value to those customers.
Local authorities are wrestling with the problem of what method to use to conduct best value reviews. Those may include area-based reviews, service-based reviews, cross-cutting themes where those apply, but particularly, reviews based on customer focus.
7.30 pm
If best value has a purpose additional to the competitiveness and efficiencies that were gained in the past and could be gained in the future through the application of compulsory competitive tendering, it is peculiarly apt that local authorities should pursue their activities not on the service basis of review, but on some other basis, alongside the normal regime of service reviews.
That will lead local authorities away from the service basis of review, and will mean that they are often conducting reviews that are not congruent with the service basis of inspection that occurs under the various inspection authorities detailed in new clause 4. If we increasingly bring together inspection by those authorities, and the best value activity of local authorities, we may find that we begin to force local authorities back into the straitjacket of service-based review, rather than the other models of review that are helpfully referred to by the Audit Commission and which I have just described.
On balance, I think it would be inappropriate to oppose new clause 4, but perhaps Ministers might consider for another place a further improvement to it. The responsibility of the Audit Commission and the other authorities to receive guidance from the Secretary of State in relation to their inspection activities must be related to the Audit Commission's responsibility to audit the performance review plans of local authorities.
That will allow the performance reviews in the various forms that I outlined to begin to mesh better with the inspection programme of the various authorities; otherwise, there will be a great heaping up of different review timetables—the annual cycles to which I referred, the review programmes set up in the local authority, some on a service basis and some on another basis, and the programme of inspections on a service basis.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has been much more generous to the proposal than I was. He is implying some sort of leading role for the Audit Commission, which is not the way that I read new clause 4. I understand the Audit Commission to be one of many bodies, including all the other inspection bodies and possibly the local authorities—we do not know that yet. Is my hon. Friend saying that he would be happy with the proposal only if the Audit Commission were given that leading co-ordinating role, or is he content with the new clause as drafted?

Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The manner in which he asks the question crystallises the point that I am trying to make. I shall try to answer him.
At present, the Audit Commission has a leading role only in relation to the question of when inspections should occur. It should be explicit in new clause 4 that the Audit


Commission has a responsibility to liaise in the performance review activity of local authorities, in which the local authorities should play an integral part in showing the Audit Commission on what basis they are conducting their review, why they are doing so and according to what timetable.
The Audit Commission will also have a connection with the various inspection authorities and will be able to link the two, so that the inspections conducted by the various inspection authorities, including the Audit Commission itself, do not begin their assessment at an inappropriate moment—for example, if a given service in a local authority is about to be the subject of fundamental review.
None of that means that the local authority can determine when the inspections should take place by the social services or any other body. Sometimes it will be in the nature of an inspection authority that the local authority cannot defer or influence the timing of inspection, because the inspections should be entirely independent of the local authority. The Audit Commission has the status and ability to liaise between the two types of activities and try to make sure that they work together effectively, rather than cutting across one another.
It is clear that in the past, some inspection activities have occurred with a focus on compliance with the statutory responsibility of local authority services, but with no recognition of the intimate relationship between that and the management of a service, so that the service can be delivered more effectively. The example that I have in mind, which may be familiar to some hon. Members, is the management of child protection services in Cambridgeshire.
It was clear at an early stage that the social services inspectorate was engaged in examining what was happening in Cambridgeshire because it had fallen down on its statutory responsibilities to children, but that the main reason for that was the poor management of the activity in the service. The professional activity was not wholly deficient—many of the professionals worked well—but the management was poor.
To achieve best value in services, we must bring together review of management, which is essentially an Audit Commission responsibility, and the review of professional practice, which was the social services responsibility. It follows that that must be managed together with the best value and performance review activity of local authorities. For all its merits in respect of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, new clause 4 could go further in linking the aspects that I have highlighted.
I shall comment briefly on Government amendment No. 19. I raised the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex and have been thinking about it further. Again, it is not sufficient to oppose the amendment. It should be further studied by Ministers and in another place. The question is whether it is appropriate for the Audit Commission to be given the power under amendment No. 19 to delegate all its functions under this part of the Bill to
a committee or sub-committee including persons who are not members of the Commission, or…an officer or servant of the Commission".
The particular point that I have in mind is the ability of the Audit Commission, if it finds that a service is failing, to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State that

he should make a direction under clause 14, which could go as far as to transfer a function from the authority to the Secretary of State. That is a pretty potent power and a pretty important recommendation for the Audit Commission to make.
Under those circumstances, it would be reasonable to reconstruct that part of the Bill, if it is so amended, so that although the Audit Commission can delegate its functions, if it is minded to make a recommendation of the kind that would lead to a direction under clause 14, that should be decided by the commission, rather than by any committee, sub-committee or person acting on a delegated function.
On balance, I agree with my hon. Friend that new clause 4 should receive our support, but with the substantial reservations expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and me.

Mr. Grieve: I shall be brief and focus on new clause 4 and amendment No. 95.
New clause 4 should not be allowed to pass without further comment. I said earlier, not entirely tongue in cheek, when I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that in the Bill, the Government were going down the road of administrative tutelage. That expression is well known on the continent and refers to a total system of government which is under central elite control through a bureaucracy which is run and politically directed. It is a system of government that does not commend itself to me.
Best value does commend itself to me. I perfectly understand the concept. If the Government say that they want local authorities to provide best value, I shall not stand in their way and would welcome it. Various Governments have tried to secure best value. Indeed, the pedigree of a best value project is a Conservative one. We should applaud the Government for wanting to go down that road. But central to Britain's administrative system is the independence of those organisations which exist to determine whether best value is being provided. That is what the Audit Commission and the various inspectorates listed in new clause 4 are all about. That is what they are designed and supposed to do. Yet new clause 4 suggests that the Government intend that, in future, the power of such bodies to control the way in which local authorities function will go way beyond the sort of remit that I would have expected them to have.
I am mindful that the Secretary of State can already give guidance under existing regulations, but when it comes to reform, I view the Government's project as a package. Therefore, I am even more deeply suspicious because I cannot divorce what new clause 4 is trying to do from a host of other Government legislation which is about administrative centralisation. Most extraordinary is that that is from a Government who pride themselves on having sold devolution. However, as we know, having given with the one hand, they try to claw back with the other.
New clause 4 is a highly suspect project. It appears to give unfettered power to a Government, who are highly acquisitive of power, to direct local authorities by administrative means and to fetter the very independence which the Government said at the election they wished to enhance. That is contrary to what the Government promised, but in conformity with what the Government have delivered in their first two years in office.
The Bill has received its Second Reading and had a long Committee stage—in which, mercifully, given the long hours that were spent on it, I did not have to participate—but, as the pass has been sold, it is incumbent on us to try to save something from the wreckage. That is why amendment No. 95 so commended itself to me when my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) asked me for my views on its drafting.
The impositions that will be placed on local authorities in respect of possible interventions by those various bodies are potentially extremely onerous. One of my hon. Friends referred to the extraordinary effect that such audits have on parish councils, accounting for the disappearance of between 50 and 75 per cent. of their budget.
But that is as things exist at present. Most extraordinary is that a series of measures are being introduced whereby the intervention of various bodies delegated by the Government under their guidance to carry out investigation will be non-stop. Under this project, the cost will fall entirely on the local authorities, with the Government setting the guidelines on how much it will all cost.
That is a manifest unfairness. Given the local Government settlement for last year and the previous year, when I had occasion to go to see Minister for Local Government and Housing at least once, the Minister knows well that, in the tension over Government expenditure, the tendency to pass over to local government expenditure for which the Government are not prepared to fork out, and to do it by sleight of hand, giving the impression that the fault for not providing the service lies entirely with local government, is a temptation for Governments of all political hue, but the Government are clearly going even further down that road.
Some limit must be placed on this. For once, I have some faith in local authorities, because most local authorities are not so inefficient and ineffective that they require the close tutelage which the Government intend to place upon them. If that is what the Government intend to do, they should limit the burden of cost on those local authorities.
If it were a question of local authorities committing some impropriety I would be the first to accept that the burden should fall on them. But this is a case of local authorities simply being told that they will have various inspections imposed on them for which they will pay. Therefore, amendment No. 95 seeks to ensure that, over a particular level, that cost is limited. I commend that to the House and I am grateful to note that the Liberal Democrats also think that there is merit in the amendment. I hope that, at the appropriate time, the amendment will be put to the vote.
7.45 pm
The way in which Government amendments have been introduced on Report clearly signals the close control that the Government intend to exercise over local authorities. This is not the partnership that was proclaimed at the election. I frankly admit that one of the criticisms that I had of the 18 years of Conservative Government was that, in our drive for fiscal and economic efficiency, on

occasions we overrode the need for effective local government. What I find so extraordinary is that, far from wanting to reverse that, which is something which I would have at least tacitly supported and applauded on a selective basis, the Government are going much further and, instead of the tried and well tested system of allowing local government autonomy and interfering only where there is need, the autonomy will completely disappear, and the powers being taken by the Government in new clause 4 are all part of that. For those reasons, I oppose the new clause.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: When I moved the new clause I welcomed the constructive approach adopted by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) in Committee and his determination to ensure that best value worked to good effect. However, in the past few hours, Opposition Members have made few constructive comments. Unfortunately, the Opposition's Janus-like view seems set to continue.
The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) spoke of an army of inspectors. However, by enabling co-ordination and the co-opting of expert advice, the Government's new clause and amendments help to ensure effective and economic inspection.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who is no longer present, raised concerns about the number of inspections, a general theme among Opposition Members. Whether deliberately or otherwise, they seem to have misunderstood the nature of the inspection envisaged in the Bill.
In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing referred on numerous occasions to the lightness of touch of inspections, saying that they would be triggered only by such things as the auditors' report or other serious causes for concern. It is not as though inspections will occur for no good reason, and will be the order of the day, occurring continuously. That is the impression that any member of the public listening would have got from Opposition Members, perhaps deliberately so.

Sir Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones: No, I shall not give way. For three hours I have been listening to the repetitious comments of Opposition Members. Very few of them were meant for serious consideration, but I want to address the serious points that were made.
The hon. Member for North Essex asked a number of questions and I shall try to answer some of them. He gave some welcome to new clause 4 and its attempt to ensure co-ordination, but he asked for an example of what the guidance would be. The inspection forums should, first and foremost, undertake the co-ordination functions for the various inspectorate regimes. Guidance issued by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly would be a last-resort power used only when the forums had failed to agree. The failures in the forums would serve as indicators of what should be included in the guidance and, therefore, I cannot be specific about what the guidance will say until we see what causes disagreement.
The hon. Gentleman also asked some questions about amendment No. 19, as did other hon. Members.

Mr. Jenkin: That pretty inadequate answer is an admission that the Government are applying for yet


another power for they know not what, because they are making it up as they go along. That absolutely characterises the nature of the Bill. The Minister criticises Conservative Members, who are raising legitimate concerns. [Interruption.] I can understand why he is not enjoying the experience, because his answers are so inadequate.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is in his best interest to appeal to the Conservative Members sitting behind him, but he has my answer.
Amendment No. 19 deals with the Audit Commission's powers to delegate. The Audit Commission Act 1998 provides for such powers in the undertaking of the commission's present functions. The Bill extends the commission's functions and the amendment simply allows it the same power to delegate in respect of best value as it has in other areas.
The hon. Gentleman asked why amendment No. 12 specifically refers to the Welsh Assembly. It does so because that amendment relates to clause 31 which is in part III, where the substitution provided for in clause 27—the Bill's Welsh clause—does not operate. Clause 27 is in part I.
The one non-Government amendment is amendment No. 95, which would restrict the flexibility of the inspector to vary his fee in respect of an inspection where significantly more work was involved than he had originally envisaged. That variation has been deliberately built in to cater for exceptional circumstances. If an inspector were to uncover acute failure, the fee could easily be greatly exceeded. The drafting of the clause reflects that of the Audit Commission Act 1998. When carrying out an audit, it is usual for the auditor and the authority to agree the approximate cost in advance, with the authority being informed during the audit whether any significant variation is likely to be necessary.

Sir Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jones: No, I will not.
We expect that inspections will work in a similar way. In order to retain the flexibility to deal with situations in the most appropriate and cost-effective way, I ask Conservative Members to withdraw their amendment, although I have little confidence that their answer will be affirmative.
The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), who is not in the Chamber at the moment—

Mr. Forth: Typical.

Mr. Jones: I shall try to be gallant; having sat through the past three hours, I can well understand why the hon. Lady is not present. She asked whether the amendment relating to energy conservation could be included in the Bill. That amendment has not been accepted because it was not in order; if another can be drafted which is in order, we will consider it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

REQUIREMENT FOR OVERRIDING ORDER

'(1)In the event of the Secretary of State's powers under sections 5 (2), 5 (4), 6 (2), 7 (4b), 7 (4c), 7 (4e), 7 (41), 7 (5c), 9 (5), 10 (2), 10 (3) and 14 of this Act not being exercised in respect of a particular best value authority within any period of three years after the coming into effect of this Act, the powers in this Act shall only be exercised in respect of that authority subject to an overriding order under this section.
'(2) No such order shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution, of each House of Parliament.
(3) Such an overriding order shall itself expire if at any time a period of 3 years has elapsed during which none of the Secretary of State's powers specified in subsection (1) have been exercised.'.—[Mr. Jenkin.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 83, in clause 13, page 9, line 24, after 'State', insert
'subject to section (Requirement for overriding order) above'.

Mr. Jenkin: The new clause is all-embracing. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who wound up the previous debate and is leaving the Chamber, accused us of being Janus-like in our opposition to the Bill, but more Janus-like is the Labour party's attitude, which produced the Bill in the first place. The expectation, from all the body language and attitude of Labour Members when they were in opposition, was that they would give powers back to local authorities and reverse the trend of centralisation which, we have to admit, occurred under the Conservatives.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): They confess.

Mr. Jenkin: Yes, we confess. There were many constraints upon us that required us to take powers to central Government, but that was never a process that we enjoyed, and I suspect that the Labour party is enjoying that process even less. If ever an expectation were dashed, this is it; the Bill takes 27 new powers for the Secretary of State over the activities, functions and finances of local government.
The whole purpose of the Bill is make improvements in respect of activities undertaken by local authorities. The Labour party promised to abolish compulsory competitive tendering, but the best value powers over the activities of local authorities are more penetrative, more all-embracing and more comprehensive than the relatively limited competitive tendering powers.
The Labour party also promised to abolish what it called crude and universal capping, a phrase that was flourished at Labour party conferences in times gone by to give the impression that Labour was against capping. Attaching the term "crude and universal" to capping, suggested that capping was crude and universal by nature, but we now know that Labour meant that it would abolish one kind of capping and replace it with another.
We could say that the Bill modernises capping, but I do not think that many people are impressed. As for the introduction of council tax benefit subsidy limitation—[Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and Housing asserts that I am out of order, but Mr. Deputy Speaker is quite capable of making that judgment on his own.
Council tax benefit subsidy limitation is a totally new concept and there was no promise, pledge or even hint of it in the Labour manifesto. In Committee, the Minister said, "Yes, we have extended our manifesto commitment", as though that was likely to be welcomed by local authorities. They bitterly oppose the measure, rather in the same way that the governing party bitterly opposed the housing benefit clawback introduced by the previous Conservative Government.

8 pm

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend has been too generous to the Government. Universal capping has been brought back, in effect, as council tax benefit clawback. What they have done with the second part is bring in subjective capping in a vicious way; it could be applied extensively, viciously and selectively, even on a purely political basis. We have seen the beginning of a trend. The standard spending assessment has been utilised to redistribute funds—

Mr. Fallon: Manipulated.

Sir Paul Beresford: Or manipulated, as my hon. Friend says. It has been manipulated to shift funds to friends, colleagues or crony councils throughout the country.

Mr. Jenkin: I agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes.
As I said on Second Reading, we approach the Bill from the perspective of an Opposition party that is re-evaluating its policies on local government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has been making it clear for more than a year that we are reassessing our view of local government. He said to the Local Government Association conference last year—[Laughter.]
I note that the Minister for Local Government and Housing is laughing, but my right hon. Friend got a better reception at the conference than she did last year, and I bet that she is not looking forward to it this year. He said on that occasion:
I am committed to local decision-making and to effective local government.
He went on:
all of us in this room must think about how we can once more make local democracy vital and effective"—
something which the Minister for Local Government and Housing seems to have forgotten about very quickly as she has settled into her comfortable ministerial office. He added
As we carry out our thinking our guiding principle will be this: we believe that decisions in our society should be taken as closely as possible to the people affected.

If we can achieve more independence and more accountability for local authorities, with all the tough choices and difficult responsibilities that entails, then we should be able to strip away the controls that fetter councils—including capping.
I want to be able to trust local government to take serious decisions affecting local people without the risk of heavy-handed intervention from central government.
That is the objective of our policy. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
I was struck by some of the reasons that were advanced in favour of capping in Committee. The Minister for Local Government and Housing used two in particular which caused me amusement. She said:
We have said consistently that we do not run away from the fact that there is a national interest which—in terms of this country ever being ready to adopt the euro and make those changes—is the amount of its debt. The amount of a country's public borrowing is one of the Maastricht criteria: it is an aspect of the national interest, which is very important.
I never thought that I would hear monetary union advanced as an argument for capping local authority expenditure.
The Minister was a little more honest later when she said:
The Government have a responsibility to local council tax payers to retain reserve powers to protect them, if necessary—as we promised in our manifesto."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 February 1999; c. 466–69]
There is a legitimate reason, perhaps, to maintain controls over local authority taxation, but not perhaps over the overall local authority budgets.
The argument is a constantly developing one. A most interesting paper that was produced by Peter Watt, senior lecturer in economics at the university of Birmingham, advances an argument that perhaps puts local authority spending and, in particular, local authority taxation into perspective. Our amendment seeks—I will come to the detail of it in due course—to set a sunset on the general regulation of local authorities, particularly with regard to capping.
I have no doubt that the argument will be advanced against the amendment—whatever its detail may be—that capping is necessary in the national interest, but Mr. Watt points out that the macroeconomic gain in controlling local authority expenditure is very limited. He points out that council tax is about—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should return to the details of the new clause, as he suggested that he might do soon.

Mr. Jenkin: I am advancing the argument, which is implicit in our amendment, that capping will reach the end of its useful life and should be phased out. The amendment provides a mechanism by which capping powers in the Bill will expire. I have no doubt that the Government will advance the case that those capping powers are necessary in perpetuity. I advance the argument that it is possible to run a good economy without necessarily having such close control over a relatively small part of our national expenditure.
Various arguments are advanced: we need a balanced budget; the shift between private and public spending causes inflation. However, the theory is based on the assumption that households do not benefit from local authority services.

Ms Armstrong: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could perhaps tell us which amendment he is speaking to because I think that he is speaking to the next group of amendments.

Mr. Jenkin: I beg the House's pardon. When I said amendment, I meant new clause 5. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting me right.
It is also argued that increased council tax feeds into the retail prices index; the argument was advanced extensively during our period of office. However, rates and now council tax should perhaps not be in the RPI; there is a question as to whether they do have an inflationary effect. Money taken out of council tax feeds directly into the economy in another way. Even if council tax is in the RPI, it is not clear that an increase in—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause relates to best value reviews. The hon. Gentleman should come to the nub of the argument.

Mr. Jenkin: The nub of the argument is that the emphasis that has hitherto been placed on the importance of capping for its macroeconomic effects has been overstated, but I will curtail my comments on that score.
It is important to understand that bitter opposition to the Government's capping powers, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) explained in his intervention, are much wider than the capping powers that the Government inherited, has come from august organisations that otherwise provide much support for the Government. They include the Local Government Association. It also opposes, or has expressed reservations, about the considerable powers in the Bill relating to best value. It also opposes the council tax subsidy limitation, which the new clause seeks to curtail.
The new clause creates circumstances in which the best value review powers, the capping powers and council tax benefit limitation powers will be gradually curtailed. The association says that council tax limitation will hit the poorest areas hardest, and that the guideline increases for council tax benefit limitation could be viewed as a direct substitute for the crude and universal capping that the Labour party says it opposes.

Mr. James Gray: Am I right in thinking that new clause 5—the sunset new clause—will mean that the provisions with regard to capping will expire after three years? Is that my hon. Friend's suggestion?

Mr. Jenkin: I am making the case for the new clause and then I will explain its detail.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has tried to steer the hon.

Gentleman back towards the new clause. I should be grateful if he would deal specifically with the details in the new clause.

Mr. Jenkin: The new clause refers to the requirement for an overriding order. Let me turn to the details. It refers to a number of powers that may be exercised—[Interruption.] I am finding it difficult to concentrate, because the Minister for Local Government and Housing keeps giving advice in a stage whisper.
New clause 5 specifies a number of powers to be exercised by the Secretary of State in the best value process. Its purpose is to specify the powers which, if not exercised within three years of the implementation of the Act, would cause all the powers in the Act—including council tax limitation and capping powers—to expire. [Interruption.] The Minister seems slightly hysterical. Perhaps she should drink a glass of water and lie down for a bit. I am perfectly willing to accept that the drafting of the new clause may be imperfect, but its purpose is clearly to provide for circumstances in which all the powers in the Act would expire.
There is, however, a fallback for the Government. If the Secretary of State needed to use the powers later because a local authority had not performed as it had been expected to and was causing difficulties, they would still be available—subject to an order that would have to be proved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Forth: I hoped that my hon. Friend would specify circumstances in which the Secretary of State's powers might not be exercised in the way described by the new clause. I readily follow the logic behind "in the event of this, that and the other", but I want to know in what circumstances my hon. Friend imagines the wording of the new clause would be invoked.
For what it is worth, I have always assumed that the Secretary of State would be anxious to use the new powers in the Bill. I think that my hon. Friend said earlier that there were 28, but no doubt more will come. The new clause, however, suggests that the Secretary of State may not use those powers. I find that intriguing: in what circumstances might the Secretary of State not use them?

Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend has asked a key question. We were constantly assured that the reserve powers in clause 14 would be fallback powers, to be used only in extremis, and that the very existence of the best value process would cause sweetness and light to break out in local authorities, so that the Secretary of State would not be required to intervene. It is possible that the drafting is too broad in respect of some of the powers specified in the new clause, but the key point is this: when an authority is essentially well behaved and is applying the principles of best value through self-discipline in conjunction with the monitoring of the Audit Commission, surely it is entirely reasonable for the other powers that the Secretary of State has over the local authority to expire, returning to the authority the powers that we want authorities to have.
I remind the House that the objective of the time-limiting of capping powers was discussed in Committee. Indeed, I believe that a member of the Minister's party tabled an amendment proposing that the capping powers should expire in 2005.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is not about capping powers. The hon. Gentleman must refer specifically to new clause 5.

Mr. Jenkin: I may be under a misapprehension in regard to the drafting of my own new clause, but it states that, in the event of the powers in the first part of the Bill's not being exercised,
the powers in this Act shall only be exercised
subject to an overriding order. That is intended to include capping powers and council tax limitation powers in the whole Act. To that extent, this is about providing sunsetting for capping powers, council tax limitation powers and all the other powers in the Bill.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I have been puzzling over how my hon. Friend has come up with this construction, but I think that I am at last beginning to understand. Is he arguing that, under new clause 5, if the Secretary of State has not exercised his powers in relation to best value over three years, all the powers in the Act, including the power to cap, will fall away?

Mr. Jenkin: That is exactly it. I am sorry that I have not made myself as clear as I could have.

Mr. Letwin: In that case, the new clause is vastly better and more powerful than many of us thought. [Interruption.] Judging by the chuntering of Labour Front Benchers, it is much more powerful than the Government themselves understood.

Mr. Jenkin: The purpose of the new clause is to provide for circumstances in which the panoply of powers will begin to fall away from Government, allowing local authorities more autonomy and more control over their affairs. We thought that the Government believed in that when they were in opposition. I have here a number of early-day motions signed by hon. Members who are now in government, expressing such sentiments.

Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the new clause obviously vastly improves the situation for which the Bill provides, it might improve the situation further if the falling away of powers under clause 29—the capping powers—occurred if they had not been exercised for three years, regardless of what had happened to the best value powers?

Mr. Jenkin: I certainly accept that there are alternative ways of sunsetting the provisions, but the purpose of linking the sunsetting of the capping and tax limitation powers and the best value powers in relation to the exercise of the best value powers is this. If an authority is achieving best value to the extent that the Secretary of State need not exercise his best value powers, the result

must be that the authority is exercising its function effectively, efficiently and economically, and providing its council tax payers with a good service at a reasonable price. That is why I chose those powers rather than the capping powers. An authority may well avoid capping, but if it is not running its service effectively, why should it be exempt from the other powers in the Bill?

Mr. Letwin: I think that I am beginning to understand my hon. Friend's deep logic—[Interruption.] I mean that entirely seriously. He seems to be saying that, under clause 29, it would be impossible for the Secretary of State to devise appropriate principles for the invocation of capping if he had not already determined that a local authority had failed to achieve best value.

Mr. Jenkin: If the local authority had failed to achieve best value, the powers in the Bill would remain intact. I suspect that the Secretary of State would continue to exercise his powers with regard to best value, and would therefore keep alive the other powers in the Bill.
If best value is truly intended to work, it will presumably become less and less necessary for Ministers to intervene. If we are to believe that best value will work, as the Government say, the intervention powers in the best value part of the Bill should be used less and less often, and it should be possible to relieve authorities of their burdens. We must believe that the Government do not want to cap authorities, and do not want to have their powers in perpetuity, because of what they used to say when in opposition.
I am holding a copy of early-day motion 73, dated 5 June 1997, which states:
That this House believes that local decision-making should be less constrained by central Government and also more accountable to local people; therefore considers it unacceptable to continue the practice of capping local authority expenditure so as to deny local discretion.
If I go back a little further in history, I find early-day motion 327, dated 9 December 1996, stating that its signatories condemn
the imposition through capping of expenditure cuts
in local authorities. The motion was signed by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale)— who is in the Chamber—and by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who is now a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Trade and Industry.
History is rich with such examples. Another early-day motion demanded
that the Government ends its policy of capping local authorities".
It was signed by the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson); by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), who is now a Government Whip; by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney); by the Under-Secretary of


State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield—again—and even by the Secretary of State for Wales.

Jackie Ballard: The hon. Gentleman is giving the House a fascinating history lesson. I should be grateful if he would add to it by reminding us of who introduced capping powers.

Mr. Jenkin: I do not think that that is in dispute. Some people do not seem to understand that the Conservative party lost the general election, and that Conservative Members are now doing what we were overwhelmingly elected to do—to oppose. When one loses an election, it is a time to reassess one's policies. The Government seem to have been elected and, immediately, changed their mind about some of the fundamental issues on local authorities.

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) neglected to set the scene in which capping was introduced, or to describe the effects that had to be achieved in trying to inhibit the behaviour of many local authorities. The previous Labour Government were themselves starting to take the same action. The hon. Lady has been praising some Liberal Democrat-controlled local authorities, in which I can appreciate why there may be some feeling against capping.

Mr. Jenkin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The history of local government is the history of circumstances dictating ever more control over local authorities. However, now that the atmosphere in local government is changing, and the hard left has been defeated, there is an opportunity to consider alternatives.
Perhaps the most enlightening early-day motion I have is one that calls for
abolition of capping as undemocratic".
It was signed by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment; again by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield—his name appears regularly in such motions; and by the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning. The list goes on. Another motion calls for the Government
to abandon the use of standard spending assessments in determining their arbitrary capping limits.
The same argument applies to the Government's proposals in the Bill on council tax benefit limitation powers. Early-day motion 544, dated 2 December 1997, was signed by no fewer than 100 Labour Members, criticising the Government for their provisions on housing benefit in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. However, the Government are now applying, in their council tax limitation, exactly the same principles used in the earlier legislation. A few brave souls signed early-day motion 182, which criticises the Government for going down that road.
We know that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment fought a bitter battle in Cabinet to try and stop implementation of council tax benefit limitation. One should therefore have thought that the Government would look favourably on an amendment such as new clause 5—which would provide an opportunity to sunset unattractive powers that no hon. Member truly wants to exercise over

local authorities, and that are in the Bill of necessity, not desire—to provide a sensible and structured way in which such powers might gradually be reduced.
In a letter of 14 January 1999 to the Minister for Local Government and Housing, the chairman of the Local Government Association, Councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham said:
The Association also considers that the reserve capping powers should be time-limited, ending after, say five years, by which time the other aspects of the reform agenda should be in place.
The right hon. Lady has repeatedly said that the entire purpose of best value and of the Government's—as they call it—reform and modernisation of local government is to provide an opportunity to give more responsibility back to local authorities. Our new clause 5 would give real life to the Government's supposed commitments to local democracy, autonomy and control.
If the Government do not wish to commit themselves to accepting new clause 5, we shall divide the House on it, to demonstrate the seriousness of our intent and purpose in reforming local government, so that local government shall have more autonomy and more control. The Conservative party is a party that means what it says, rather unlike the Labour party.
I emphasise to the Minister that our new clause 5 is a structured proposal that will be paced according to how the Secretary of State himself exercises the powers provided to him in the Bill. It should be possible for the Minister to give it a warm welcome.

Mr. Curry: There is a serious purpose behind new clause 5—to discover whether the Government believe that the panoply of powers that they are now taking unto themselves, adding to current powers, will be needed in perpetuity. The principle of best value, as I understand it, is that it will produce regular improvement in how local government delivers services. As we discussed in Committee, there is bound to be a time when the excellent become a little more excellent, the ordinary move up a bit in the league tables, and the rather unambitious ones in the bottom half of the tables become passable. However, with each improvement, incremental gain becomes ever more difficult to achieve. Do the Government believe that there will be perpetual improvement, or is there a local government nirvana in which authorities will be deemed to be performing satisfactorily? The purpose of the new clause is to find the answer to that question.
There are two possible scenarios. In the first, we look at the current circumstances of local government. The Minister may need to be prompted when he replies, but he should not need my questions interpreted as we go along. I try to speak in relatively modest English.

Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman is not saying anything new.

Mr. Curry: I am sure that the right hon. Lady knows from her long experience in the House that politics is often a matter of trying to repeat arguments that were clearly not understood the first time.
In the first scenario, we accept that there is clearly room for significant improvements in local government at the moment. The Secretary of State should not have to use his powers, because delivering improvements will not need a


gargantuan effort or the skills of rocket scientists, although there may be problems in one or two areas. For example, we have a "will he, won't he?" situation in Hackney on the future of the education service.
Improvements should be evident early on, but what happens 10 years down the road if the legislation is still in place and local authorities have made significant improvements? Having made a great deal of effort they may find it difficult to continue making incremental gains. The Secretary of State will not give up and will continue to expect more gains. Every year, all Governments build cost-efficiencies into their financing formulae and expect productivity gains. Every year people protest that the gains are not easy to achieve. At some stage, they are bound to be right.
Do the Government envisage the extraordinarily extensive powers of intervention being needed in perpetuity? They have released local government into a gilded cage. It is an open prison in which local authorities cannot see the walls, but they know that if they go beyond a certain frontier they will get an electric shock and the guards will come after them. That is the best value principle.
I quite like the best value principle, because it is a logical successor to the compulsory competitive tendering process. It would not have been introduced without the experience of competitive tendering. The previous Government were looking for a more sophisticated mechanism that was less demanding of resources to supersede competitive tendering. One cannot say that the Government's proposals will not require vast resources for policing. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is having a conversation on the Front Bench at the moment. The Treasury may become rather twitchy at some stage about the resources demanded by all the monitoring. It usually reacts like that.

Mr. Gray: Did I understand correctly that my right hon. Friend believed that CCT involved more monitoring costs than best value? Surely it is the other way round.

Mr. Curry: No, that is the opposite of what I said. The previous Government were concerned about the manpower costs of CCT. We recognised that it was necessary to find a mechanism to allow the most responsive and competitive authorities to recover certain freedoms and discretions, relieving some of the manpower costs. That is a logical incentive. Best value has provided a different mechanism for control, but it has not relieved the public purse—defined in the broadest sense—of the immense cost of the supervision. The money resolution had to give enormous new resources to the Audit Commission.

Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not forgetting the unquantified additional costs added to the Bill by the previous group of amendments, in which we identified a new army of co-ordinators, forums and all sorts of other things that would—probably mistakenly—attempt to co-ordinate all the others.

Mr. Curry: I have not forgotten about that. We pointed to the need for some co-ordination, but we are anxious that co-ordination should not take over the inspection functions. The costs will be very substantial.
I should like to tease out what the Government think that local government will look like in 10 years. That is a legitimate question. Governments tend to look at the ground immediately in front of them, because that is where the landmines explode, but they have another major local government Bill on the way—apparently it is to be published in the next few days—that is also very prescriptive of how local authorities must behave and what choices they have to take, removing discretion from councils to choose their own form of management. We are getting prescription across the board. I am anxious to know whether there is some stage at which the rhetoric of liberty—the freedom rhetoric—will be complemented by measures that suggest that local government is to be trusted.
As I said in Committee, the Government and their predecessors—I am not in the business of repentance politics, so I do not apologise for it—were more concerned about good local administration than about local government. The Bill is another prescription for efficient local administration, but it removes local government from the people because it does not give them the discretion to choose—even to choose bad councillors and inefficient local government if they want to live with that.
What does the Minister envisage as the net result of the legislation? It has a purpose. At some stage, we hope to reach a form of local government about which we can say reform has been achieved, when we can return local government to the people. The community should take responsibility for local government; we do not need a canopy of measures constantly riding shotgun.
If the Minister can give us some idea of the Government's intentions, the new clause will not be necessary. It was tabled to try to tease out some idea of where the Government imagine they will end up after the long voyage that they have undertaken with the local government barque being towed behind at some distance. If the Minister can tell us that, she will do us all a service. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has done us a great service by tabling the new clause which requires that question to be asked and answered.
The sunset clause provides for the natural extinction of powers if they have not been exercised. If they have not been exercised, that is because the local authority concerned behaved in a way that the Secretary of State deemed satisfactory. In a sense, that is an incentive; it is a means by which the local authority can be rewarded with more freedom through the absence of restraint and direction. I do not understand why the Minister does not admit that that is rather a good idea. It enables a local authority to demonstrate its efficiency, good will and capability. If it can do that, why on earth should it continue to be bound by the constraints. Why can it not be said that a local authority has demonstrated that it can live within the responsibilities defined by its own electorate instead of by the Government? If the Minister accepts that, she will have done local government a service instead of constantly talking about its freedom.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I welcome the new clause as it provides a useful opportunity to debate a number of issues in the Bill. It also reflects the Conservative Front-Bench approach to revisionism and repentance in respect of the 18 years of Conservative Government. We welcome that, although I listened to the


right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) saying that he did not wish to be part of the repentance side of the exercise.
New clause 5 is a clever amendment, as was reflected in the exchanges around the Chamber. It provides for the cessation of the capping power being exercised by the Secretary of State if a local authority is a good local authority under the terms of the Bill. If the Secretary of State has no need to use the best value powers to regulate a local authority, after the three-year period to which the new clause refers the other powers within the Bill cease to have effect. That is to be welcomed.
It is a pity that the Conservatives did not take that approach in government and that it took the sunset of a general election for them to realise that such a measure would focus the energy and attention of local government. I urge the Government to give the new clause serious thought, as it represents another way of achieving their intentions in respect of beacon councils. Beacon councils are about providing a means by which local authorities can secure greater independence, autonomy and freedom of action for and on behalf of their local communities. If the new clause can achieve that, it must be welcomed.
We have one or two reservations, however, because the new clause does not extinguish those powers; it merely adds a second stage to the exercise of those powers.
If a Secretary of State wished to cap a council that for the first three years after the Bill's enactment had been good in his eyes and had complied with the provisions on best value, he would first have to come to the House to override the measure that the amendment would place in the Bill, and would then have to come back again with another motion to cap the council. That would not be a bad thing, because the Secretary of State would have to think twice before exercising the powers that the Bill will give him in respect of a secretive, selective and—in some respects—dubious process of capping.
This is a debate about capping, as well as a debate about best value. Some may have thought that we were straying on to a debate on the following group of amendments, but it is entirely right that we dwell on the consequences of the capping powers that the Government are taking to themselves which, in some ways, are much more invidious than those that the previous Government developed over a number of years. Those powers were crude and universal but the powers that this Government are proposing are far worse, because they allow a far more selective approach. It is for that reason—perhaps more than any other—that the new clause should be supported.

Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the peculiar features of clause 29 is that it appears to constrain the arbitrariness of the reserved power while doing nothing of the kind? The Department has been more expert, perhaps, than any other in our nation's history in inventing principles that have the remarkable result of identifying only a single case for capping, or for anything else.

Mr. Burstow: I am sure that the advice to Ministers will be produced in a masterly way to assist them in achieving their aims. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and that is in no way disrespectful of the professional way in which the work is done. However, the work is enabling Ministers to achieve their ends, and the

Bill is very much about Ministers achieving their ends at the expense of local democracy and local choice by local people.

Mr. Adrian Sanders: And council tax formulae.

Mr. Burstow: As my hon. Friend says, the proposals undoubtedly have an important impact on decisions that local authorities take on council tax—decisions that are largely out of their hands as a consequence of the system that this Government are operating, but which the previous Government largely constructed.
If best value is about anything, it is about making sure that local authorities deliver good and effective services that are appropriate and relevant to the needs of the local community. The problem is that the Government think that they know better than every local authority in the land about what that means. That is the problem with the proposals on best value. Therefore any measure that enables us to debate the powers and to recognise them for what they are—a set of powers designed to prescribe and direct local government, and to transfer it into an agency of central Government—is entirely to be supported. We will support the new clause because it is undoubtedly right that, at the very least, we in this place should be able to debate whether the Secretary of State should use the powers in future.
Many local authorities who, through their own good efforts, will deliver what the Government call best value should and ought to be able to escape the capping regime; both the crude and universal capping through council tax benefit subsidy limitation, and the more sophisticated, behind-the-door and sneaky form of capping proposed by schedule 1.

Mr. Letwin: The new clause is something like a lion seen from afar: it looks small but it is in fact big.

Mr. Curry: Or an elephant.

Mr. Letwin: Indeed, except that a lion has a roar, which distinguishes it from an elephant.
8.45 pm
The new clause has a particular logic in the context of local government finance and the architecture of the Bill, and it raises a major constitutional issue. I must admit that I share the concern that many Conservative Members had when we first heard my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) speaking to the new clause. We thought that he had somehow missed its effect. I should have known better, because my hon. Friend is one of our more distinguished intellects and would not have made that mistake. He did the House the service of descending to the level of the rest of us and explaining the logic of the new clause, which is even more profound, important and just than he gave himself credit for.
Dorset county council has for many years followed all the rules imposed on it by central Government. That is because it has been in recent times under Liberal governance and not run by some lunatic Labour administration.

Mr. Gray: What?

Mr. Letwin: I will relieve my hon. Friend's concerns in a moment.
Alas, the county council has not derived anything like best value from its operations. I recently lobbied it about a footpath in Salway Ash, stretching from the church at one end of the village to the houses at the other. It remains a matter of mystery why the church was built so far from the houses, but it was, and so was the school. We went along to the council and asked whether it could build a footpath from one end to the other, and we were told that the total cost would be about £100,000.

Mr. John M. Taylor: My hon. Friend has raised rather an important point about villages where the houses are a long way from the church, which also happens in Norfolk. In the time of great plagues, communities moved, and the only permanent building was the church, which was therefore at some distance from the new settlement.

Mr. Letwin: I am profoundly grateful to my hon. Friend for illuminating what may indeed be the history of the case; but I will not dwell on that.
The county council said that the footpath would cost £100,000 because it had exerted itself to obtain best value and discovered that it would come, at that price, from its own work force. We were surprised, then, to discover, on obtaining a quotation from a local private contractor, that the very same path could be constructed for £10,000: a point that the council is now wrestling with, wholly unsuccessfully, under its Liberal administration. There is every appearance of the game being lost and the council being unable to find any reason why it should continue to build amenities such as footpaths when it cannot demonstrate that it can build them for less than 10 times the price asked by the private sector.

Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the council operated competitive tendering and went for what appeared to be the lowest quotation. If it had followed the best value rules, it would have consulted the local community, and might have found that people did not want the footpath at all.

Mr. Letwin: I do not want to dwell much longer on the footpath, but I cannot resist observing that the hon. Lady's intervention encapsulates more or less every mistake that she could have made. I was lobbying the council because I had consulted the local community—all 300 of them—and 298 had said that they would like the footpath. Dorset county council has been highly progressive in seeking best value rather than competitive tendering. It consulted extensively. Alas, under a Liberal Democrat administration, the result has been lamentable—but I do not wish to make merely partisan points.
There is a serious problem with best value. Like many, I support the concept, but remain sceptical about the ability of local authorities—even serious, sensible councils that are not lunatic—to achieve anything that would be recognised in business circles as best value.
New clause 5 is extremely subtle. It allows for the possibility that a Secretary of State who judges that a council has, over a three-year period, achieved best value—and who thus has not used the powers in the

Bill—may still intervene in almost every part of the local authority's affairs to impose best value. Only in such a case would the new clause end the capping powers.
This apparently slight new clause contains a new doctrine of the relationship between local government and central Government. We used to think it proper not to intervene when a local authority was not spending too much money. That was a Treasury-driven metaphysic.
We are discussing a much subtler proposition. New clause 5 says that if the Secretary of State determines that spending is good—that best value has been achieved—his powers to cap should be removed. It would be left to the local population to decide the level of spending that it wanted. The Secretary of State could not intervene, so long as he had assured himself that the money was being put to good purpose through best value.
That is a profound—and right—shift in our perception of the proper relationship between local and central Government. It shows a depth of thought in the re-evaluation process to which the Minister will give credit if he is feeling generous. We know that if the Government spot a good idea generated on the Conservative Benches, they will begin a sequence of action. First, they will decry it; secondly, they will consider it; thirdly, they will adopt it. Finally, they will announce that they were its progenitors.
We should welcome that. We should be happy if the Government—even if they reject new clause 5—adopt in future a much better doctrine of the relationship between local government and central Government of the type encapsulated in the brilliant new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex. We should not be so churlish as to deny them the great public relations victory that they would doubtless seek to gain by announcing that they had had the idea themselves.
I do not wish to dwell on the relationship between new clause 5 and local government finance. The new clause raises a major constitutional issue, and I hope that the Minister will say how he could defend the rejection of new clause 5, given its constitutional significance.
New clause 5 time-limits an awesome—and rather intrusive—series of powers. They relate, it is true, not to individuals but to intermediate institutions—local authorities and any other best value authority. The Minister will ask why the powers should be time-limited, when so many other powers are not. If that is his approach, it will illustrate the very constitutional point that I seek to make and it will show how far we have fallen from grace. The Minister should be asking why we should not limit the powers in time, because Parliament used to do so regularly. For example, the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 was time-limited. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 was time-limited. The Licensing Act 1964 was time-limited. The Accommodation Agencies Act 1953 was time-limited. The Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955 was time-limited. As all hon. Members know, Prevention of Terrorism Acts have also been time-limited.
So common was time limiting in our history—although many hon. Members present may have forgotten it—that it used to be the practice regularly to produce an Expiring Laws Continuance Act, as was done in 1969 and 1970, to continue time-limited Acts for a further year. That was a splendid practice, because almost all the Acts that were time-limited contained powers of a highly intrusive


nature. A parliamentary doctrine, repeated in debate over a century and a half, made it clear that if Acts gave exceptional and intrusive powers—or arbitrary and wide-ranging powers—to a Secretary of State, it was appropriate, unless there was an extraordinary argument to the contrary, that they should be time-limited.
I am sure that the Minister will be especially interested in the case of the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955. Section 5(5) of that Act is a specific time-expiry provision, although it is not as subtle as new clause 5. It is a blunter instrument and simply provides that the powers in the Act should expire at a certain date. In the Committee stage of proceedings on the Act, a certain distinguished Member of Parliament said:
I am extremely glad that the Government have accepted… these Amendments. It deals with one of the main concerns which many of us on this side have discussed during the debates on the Bill: that is to say, we feared that an Act introduced for an entirely different purpose might, after a number of years, be distorted for a quite opposite purpose… Personally, I should prefer the Government to limit the period to a shorter term… Nevertheless we have done our best."—[Official Report, 29 March 1955; Vol. 539, c. 305–6.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point about other Acts and he should not go into detail about when they were debated. He should get back to new clause 5.

Mr. Letwin: As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for that admonition. Luckily, too, I had finished the quotation. I mentioned it because the Minister will be interested to learn that it was from one Mr. Michael Foot, who cannot be said to have been a reactionary Conservative making utterances for the sake of causing trouble. That doctrine used to be espoused on both sides of the House, even by those most devoted to socialism in its full-blooded form. However, we still find that new clause 5 has not met with the ready acceptance of Ministers. Why not? I regret that the reason undoubtedly is that they have been corrupted by the same thing as afflicted the previous Administration. That is not a partisan point, but a serious one about what happens to Governments in their relationship to local government and in their whole use of powers.
9 pm
Later this evening, we shall debate Henry VIII clauses and the same point will be made then: the Labour Government have introduced more wide-ranging powers for Secretaries of State to amend Acts by order than ever before in British history. That is regrettable, but the Government have not done it on their own; those powers are the culmination of a trend. Similarly, we see the culmination of a trend in this measure. I remember the vigorous arguments of the early 1980s when the great expansion of local government finance first occurred—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must talk about the new clause. Other matters have nothing to do with what is before the House at the moment.

Mr. Letwin: I am talking about the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am trying to explain why the Government have fallen into the trap of opposing the

new clause. The reason is that, as we did before them, they have fallen into the trap of imagining that Government control over local government is a necessary evil. They have failed to observe—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put his own case. I have not heard the Minister speak on the new clause, so we do not know what the Government's view is. We must hear the voices for the new clause and then, if necessary, we shall hear the voices against it. Let us not get into detailed explanations of why the Government should oppose the new clause until we have heard what they have to say.

Mr. Letwin: I would not dream of suggesting that I know what the Government will say, although you might agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the Government did not intend to take the view that I was describing, Ministers would by now—in what I regret is rather a long speech—have intervened. We know that the Government will not accept the new clause.
To reverse the point and make it positive, the reason for the new clause is that the Government need to adapt; they need to realise that local government is capable of running its own affairs. It is vital that if this country is to have a grown-up local democracy, local people should be given the chance to decide whether local government is running its affairs properly. I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex has said that the clause should be time-limited only if best value is being exhibited, rather than time-limiting the whole clause. He is saying that the local population may not be able to judge whether there is best value, but they are able to judge whether they like the level of local government spending.
Personally, I should have gone further. If those powers must be introduced at all—in respect of clause 29, I regret their introduction entirely—they should all be strictly time-limited. My hon. Friend has not gone that far and I understand why. However, it is also necessary for Ministers to understand it, until they come to the realization—one to which we came very painfully as a result of the prolonged arguments between the Treasury-driven side and the democratically driven side that we went through from the 1980s—that repeated efforts by Government permanently to control local government are no more than a route to perdition. Ultimately, those efforts corrode local democratic accountability and generate their own necessity: because Governments undermine local democracy, they feel more and more inclined to control it and we enter a vicious circle. The new clause nobly attempts—although not as fully as it might have done—to begin to extricate us from that vicious circle.

Ms Keeble: I believe that the hon. Gentleman was an adviser to Baroness Thatcher when she was Prime Minister and to Secretaries of State for Education while the Conservatives were developing the thinking that resulted in the imposition of more regulations and strangleholds on local government than have ever before been experienced. Is he saying that he was wrong to do that, or is he now into the repentance politics of the Conservative party?

Mr. Letwin: I am saying that we collectively made a dreadful error in believing that it was necessary to


intervene more and more to achieve the effects we sought. At the time, I was in favour of introducing forms of fiscal regime that would make the local populace take seriously the question of what councils were spending, and then freeing the councils to act on their own. I am sure that you do not want me to go into the details, Mr. Deputy Speaker; suffice it to say that my side lost the argument and the result was both a tax that, as it turned out, was too tough, and controls and interventions. The hon. Lady is right if she accuses the Conservative Government of that, but that does not negate the fact that the Labour Government are now repeating the mistake. In fact, they are repeating it twice over, not only through capping, but through the best value intrusion. With the new clause, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex is offering the Government a lifeline.
With that, I shall bring my remarks to a close. I hope that the Minister will recognise that it is a matter of great constitutional importance that he should recognise the force of the argument that there should be a natural presumption in favour of the falling away of any hugely arbitrary power from legislation, and that there is an extraordinarily strong case for time-limiting the powers relating to best value if he wants to give back to local government a degree of democratic accountability that will ultimately be his only source of rescue from the vicious circle into which he is getting himself.
For both reasons, I hope that the Minister will not take the adverse line that I, perhaps improperly, speculated he would take, and that he will come to the Dispatch Box and surprise us all by welcoming this brilliant new clause.

Sir Paul Beresford: In supporting the new clause, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) correctly pointed out that many Conservative Members, rather than being repenters, regard the best value aspects of the Bill as the continuation of a trend that started under a Labour Government in the late 1970s. Someone described local authorities as falling into three groups: parasitic, commensal and catalytic. In the late 1970s, the parasitic variety was dominant. Since then, the middle group of commensal authorities appears to have expanded and the catalytic group, which all Governments have tried to encourage, has slowly increased.
To set the scene, let me go back to the days of the Conservative Government's dealings with local government, in the 1980s and early 1990s. There was a trend of considering not only the financial aspects of local government, but, I remind the repenters, the way in which local authorities organised and ran their services. We introduced the Audit Commission and the citizens charter as the means to encourage local government to move forward. Many local authorities failed to improve: they continued to ignore the fact that they were not providing any value, let alone best value, and to plague local residents both financially and through the quality of services.
When I first arrived in this country, I lived and worked in areas such as the east end of London which had appalling local authorities—I shall ignore their political complexion, but most hon. Members will be able to guess. Those authorities imposed on local people huge council taxes—or rates as they were then—plundered local businesses and provided appalling services. The next

stage of attempting to force local authorities to examine their services, which best value also attempts to do, was the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering, which was remarkably successful.
Having set that scene, the next scene we come to is the best value scene. Best value appears to many of us, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, to be the next stage in the process I have described. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is going one step further. He is saying that we should look further ahead and accept that there are an increasing number of catalytic local authorities—to use the original description—for whom new clause 5 is the right approach.
The Minister has said time and again that we must have faith in local authorities. She also said that we should have faith in her. I can take a limited step forward with regard to local authorities, but I have no faith in her or her Government's approach. A number of local authorities are best value authorities that meet many of the Bill's requirements without the huge imposition of inspections, procedures and expenditure on consultation that it demands. My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex is giving the Minister the chance to accept that the top 10 per cent. of authorities—perhaps even more than that—should be left alone to get on with their successful operations.
The spirit behind best value is the same as the spirit behind compulsory competitive tendering. Using the reserve powers in the Bill—which involve best value and capping—we will get hold of those authorities at the bottom and lift them to the top. Middle-range authorities can and will benefit if best value is introduced properly. I am concerned that that will not happen and that we are placing a liability on local authorities in implementing best value.
That is certainly the case with the top 10 local authorities. Several local authorities in London have proved time and again that they provide a satisfactory service—both in terms of service and value for money—to local residents. Therefore, I was disturbed by the Minister's attack yesterday on three authorities that have satisfied the voting public about the quality of their service provision. Several surveys conducted by the local authorities—which were not required to do so under best value and thus did not face the heavy cost of Audit Commission reactions—pointed to that high degree of voter satisfaction.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex says that we must take a deep breath and recognise that several local authorities meet the targets, aims and aspirations set out by the Minister in the Bill. We should relieve them of the burden of council tax capping.

Mr. Letwin: I bow to my hon. Friend's greater expertise in this area, but does he not agree that the cunning of new clause 5 is that the second part of it need not apply? Local authorities might impose council taxes but, as long as they lived up to best value, they would escape the capping provisions.

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am concerned that the Minister may come to the Dispatch Box at the end of the debate and refer to the generosity to the beacon councils as a substitute for the new clause. [Interruption.]
I have read all the paraphernalia about beacon authorities, and I fear that many authorities are being forced down a road that they may not wish to take. The actions of local authorities may be impeded. New clause 5 is simplicity itself—even if it is difficult technically—because it says that the best authorities, according to a best value measurement, with low council tax should be freed from the burden and be allowed to provide their services locally with the support of the voting public.
I think of two authorities in particular that have been lambasted by the Government, but time and again, the public have given them enormous support. They will be burdened by the Bill, unless we can persuade the Minister to accept new clause 5. [Interruption.] That will give us the opportunity to change the emphasis, rather than the technicalities, and remove the burden from local authorities.

Mr. Gray: It is always slightly terrifying to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), who, from his time in Wandsworth, epitomises in so many respects all that is best about local government and the way that we ran it, providing the best possible services to people at the cheapest price without any of the unnecessary paraphernalia proposed in the Bill.
I am puzzled because the Minister's sedentary comments during my hon. Friend's speech seemed to imply that new clause 5 will not end that interventionism. I am puzzled also that she should find it necessary to make such sedentary remarks at all. That seems rather strange behaviour for a Minister, and if there is a way to demonstrate that the new clause would not do as my hon. Friend said, it might have been sensible for her to intervene on him in the time-honoured traditions of the House, rather than muttering from the Front Bench.
I am also cowed by the fact that I am following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), whose learning and elegance of exposition terrifies anybody who follows him. I was, however, worried when he heaped praise on Liberal Democrat-controlled Dorset county council, which is a bizarre thing to do. I must say that, hate it as I would, I should prefer to have a Labour-controlled council in my county than a Liberal Democrat-controlled council. The only thing worse would be a Lib-Lab council, which is what Wiltshire had until a recent by-election allowed the Conservatives to take control of the council, and we look forward to significant changes being made.
I was disappointed that I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, which I would have greatly enjoyed. However, I tried to follow its proceedings from Hansard and discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have experience of local government because I serve, with other hon. Members who are present, on the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which last year produced a report on the implementation of best value, which we greatly enjoyed doing. The Select Committee is currently involved in discussing how we can improve local government finance. Without giving away any secrets, I can say that the results of those discussions will be known in a week or two. It will be interesting to find out how the Select Committee views capping and

other aspects of local government finance in that report, and how it will influence the outcome of the debate on the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will have an opportunity to hear how the Select Committee conducts its affairs, but we must return to new clause 5.

Mr. Gray: I was conscious that I had begun to ramble, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for correcting me.
My point is that the Select Committee report on capping will be interesting because it may have a direct bearing on the sunset clause—new clause 5.
Conservative Members are not opposed to the principle of best value. Indeed, we think that local government exists precisely to strive continuously to provide a best-quality service to the public at an affordable cost. Delivering high-calibre services has long been a priority of Conservative-controlled councils, and we are proud of that record. Unlike hon. Members who constantly talk about us being sorry for what we did while we were in government, I am not the slightest bit sorry for that, particularly in relation to local government. I am proud of the fact that we introduced compulsory competitive tendering and reformed local government, which when we came to power in 1979 was, by and large, a complete shambles. So much of what we did in DOE terms—I worked in the Department of the Environment for two or three years—took great strides in putting right some of the worst aspects of local government.

Ms Keeble: Is the hon. Gentleman proud of the fact that the Conservative Government brought riots to the streets of all our inner cities in the early 1980s, and brought riots again with the poll tax?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These matters are a little wide of new clause 5.

Mr. Gray: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not be tempted into answering the hon. Lady's point, although from her privileged position in Cheltenham Ladies' college and elsewhere, I cannot imagine what she knows about protest in the streets of London.
Of course CCT had its downside and its disadvantages. All of us would be concerned about one or two aspects of the way in which it worked. None the less, it had two overwhelming advantages, which best value demonstrably does not have. First, it was relatively clear, straightforward and intellectually pure. We knew what it was. It was the application of the market—the use of the tendering process and the market to provide the best possible local government services. That is exactly the opposite of the interventionist and bureaucratic approach of best value.
Secondly, leaving aside the interventions that the Government had to make when CCT was not properly applied—from my time in the Department of the Environment, I remember how often that was, especially when left-wing Labour councils went out of their way to find ways to avoid applying CCT—it largely allowed local government to go about its business. By and large, local authorities put their business out to tender and accepted the best tender.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: The hon. Gentleman supports compulsory competitive tendering


and opposes best value, yet the new clause to which he is speaking deals with best value. Does he not think that his comments contradict those of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), of whom he expressed such great fear and terror?

Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. The fact that we both serve on the Select Committee deters me from being too harsh in my reaction to her remarks. The new clause implies that CCT was better. The interventionism implicit in the best value regime would end after three years if it were not used. It is a sunset clause. If a local authority does what it ought to do and provides best value at the best possible price, which is its duty, the interventionist powers of the Secretary of State will lapse.
I am arguing that that is what happened under the CCT regime. The local authority was left to get ahead with its own business. It put the business out to tender, examined the tenders as they came in, chose the best one at the best price, and delivered the best services at the best price.
One has only to look at Wandsworth, where I had the privilege to live for a number of years when it was run by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley, to see what CCT could do in turning round the worst-run local authority into the best-run local authority at the best price to the taxpayer. At one stage, as hon. Members will remember, the council tax in Wandsworth went to zero. Throughout its history, the poll tax was lowest in Wandsworth.
How different from that is the best value regime. The precise way in which it will work is, to say the least, a little clouded in mystery. The Select Committee's examination of best value last year came to the conclusion that it was weak and vague at its extremities—probably a well enough intentioned sort of idea, but definitely weak round the margins. Who would set the standards by which the local authority would judge itself? If those standards were not achieved, what a large amount of intervention by the Secretary of State would follow.
The setting of standards by which the local authority's delivery will be judged—and the way in which the Government ensure that they are sufficiently robust and demanding—is entirely bureaucratic, to a degree that is beloved of Labour politicians in so many ways. They love committees, bureaucracy, regulations and restrictions. They love telling people what to do. They love to tell local government that they know best, that they will lay down what is best and that if local government does not live up to that, they will intervene. All that is so beloved of Labour in every aspect, and so hated by Conservative Members. We believe in giving people the right to make their own decisions and to lead their own lives. That is why the new clause is so important.
The thrust of the debate about the place of local government in society today, and of the debate in the Select Committee on the subject of local government finance, has been to find a way of telling local government that it has a real constitutional role to play, that it is the elected representative of the people and that it has been chosen locally to make important decisions about the way in which life is run locally, and to find a way to allow it the freedom to govern as it should.
The new clause takes the principles of best value which, as I say, are weak, interventionist and bureaucratic, but limits them. It sets out how the best possible services can be provided at the best possible price to the electorate. We welcome that. It goes on to say that, if local authorities can do that for three years and the Secretary of State has no reason to intervene, at the end of that period, the Secretary of State will have those rights of intervention removed. That is an extraordinarily important democratic step which is directly in line with the flow of current thinking on local government.
The new clause is saying, as both parties go to great lengths to say in the Select Committee, that more authority should be given to local government—and we must find ways of handing authority back to it. There is much talk about whether it should have more power to raise its own finance. All that is important. Local government must either be a delivering mechanism—a management mechanism—or it must be true government, in which case powers must be handed back to it. That is why the Opposition feel so uneasy about many of the central proposals in the Bill.
The Bill says to local government, "You are not local government at all. I, the Secretary of State, know more about the provision of good services than you guys do. You may be elected, but that's tough. I am elected and I am the Secretary of State, and I know more than you fellows do. I shall pretend that you have a lot of powers. I shall remove CCT. That was bad because of the market and because it was compulsory"—

Mr. Nigel Waterson: My hon. Friend is beginning to develop his arguments on this crucial point, but does he agree that, as long as the Government still have the power to come back to the House for an overriding order in due course, the onus is very much on them to say why they are not prepared to allow the powers broadly to lapse after three years where an authority has behaved well?

Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend is right. The fact that the Government would have to come back to the House to seek a positive resolution to reintroduce the powers would put the onus back on to the Government. We should be saying, "You need to demonstrate why you, the overmighty Secretary of State, should have the right to override the duly elected representatives of the people at local level." That is an important principle.

Ms Keeble: Did the hon. Gentleman give similar advice to John Gummer when it came to rate capping local councils and to calling in contracts?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is the convention in the House to refer to hon. Members by constituency.

Mr. Gray: I was so overwhelmed by the appalling lack of good manners on the part of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) that I missed her point. I suspect that she was making some cheap reference to the advice that I gave to my right hon. Friends the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on the subject of local government. I did my best to provide what advice I could, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal used to say that I was something of the grit in his


oyster, thereby producing a pearl, but not necessarily by easy means. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon who, sadly, has skipped out for supper, used to tell me that I was a good political adviser because whatever I advised, he did exactly the opposite and by that means, he was nearly always correct. I did not quite catch the hon. Lady's intervention, but it would almost certainly have missed its mark.
9.30 pm
The thrust of the new clause is to say that you in local government have been elected by the people. You in local government have been given the right—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Why do not I give the hon. Gentleman some advice? He should be careful of the term "you", which refers to the Chair.

Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend has been a Member for two years.

Mr. Gray: As my hon. Friend reminds me, I have been a Member for two years. I was of course using the word "you" not to refer to the Chair or to Labour Members, but in a rhetorical way to describe what I would say to people in local government, to whom the word referred. None the less, I apologise for the inadvertent lack of courtesy to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
All that may seem to be relatively lightweight—flippant would be too strong a word—but a very important constitutional principle lies behind it. Both parties go to great lengths to pay lip service to the need to return authority to local government. We all say how frightfully important it is to do that; it is one of biggest mantras in all discussions about local government.
Conservative Members have tussled with the issue for some years; we have found some ways of returning power to local government and we are constantly seeking new ways of doing so. Labour Members pay great lip service to returning power to local government, and the Bill is part of that process. They say, "Fine, we will give some of these powers back to local government, which is marvellous. Here's best value; it's tremendous, isn't it? It takes away compulsion and tendering and gets rid of the market, which, goodness me, is a bad thing almost by definition—after all, the Tories introduced it. Best value is a new idea and it does away with compulsory competitive tendering. Isn't that fantastic?"
However, only when we look at the Bill's fine print do we discover that Labour Members are not giving anything at all back to local government; on the contrary, they are gathering more and more to themselves. It has been pointed out several times that the words "Secretary of State" appear 178 times in the Bill. He is gathering more and more control over local government to himself, which is why the new clause is so important.
Best value and the changes to the capping regime may have something to be said for them, but we will talk more about them when we discuss other amendments. The important point is that, under the new clause, the powers in the Bill would lapse if the Secretary of State did not have to use them. What could be more democratic or more important than giving back to local authorities the right to make their own decisions? If the Labour Government are genuine about their desire to give power back to local

government, and if they do not want people to think that they are paying only lip service to that, what could be better than accepting the new clause?

Mr. David Wilshire: Powerful arguments are clearly being made in this debate. When it began, four Members were on the Treasury Bench. We reduced that number to three and then to two. Now there is only one Member on the Treasury Bench. I can only conclude that, one by one, those Members have had to be sent out to consult the spin doctors to find some arguments against what is becoming a powerful case for the new clause.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. Does he agree that it is nothing short of remarkable that in a debate that has not only been interesting, but has raised some important constitutional issues, not a single Back-Bench Member of the Government has expressed any interest in making a speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we do not get into that particular discussion, because I want only debate on new clause 5.

Mr. Wilshire: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand the point that you make.
Although I did not serve on the Standing Committee, I have taken a close interest in local government for the 12 years that I have been a Member of the House. To save the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions the trouble of looking up my credentials—he is the only Member left on the Treasury Bench—I remind hon. Members that I served on a town council and a county council, and was the leader of a district council, before I was elected to the House.
I was the leader of one of the district councils which, in the early days, invited the Audit Commission in to do a council over as thoroughly as possible. That is how the Audit Commission developed the three Es, which are at the heart of the argument being used about best value. I have been around the course many times. In listening to the arguments, I have the sinking feeling that it will not be the last time that we go around it.
New clause 5 raises an important question, which I hope Ministers will answer when it is their turn to say something: if a local authority meets all the best value criteria that the Government have set out, why do they need draconian central powers to back up that wonderful thing called best value? If best value is the best thing since sliced bread, or at least the best thing since the last general election, why do the Government still need to trample all over local government?
What has happened to the soundbite that we kept hearing in 1996, 1997 and even 1998 that went, "We are handing power back to the people"? The Bill is the exact opposite of that soundbite. When the Minister comes to speak, he owes the House and the nation an apology for that particular U-turn.
I cannot help wondering—again, perhaps the Minister would like to enlighten us—whether the Government are not confident about best value. It is one of the smoke and mirror things that they are so good at—making policy look presentable. Is it perhaps that secretly, deep down, although they dare not mention it, they do not believe that


best value will work? If they believe that it will work, there are some more sinister reasons why we have the Bill and why they will vote against the new clause. It may be that best value is nothing more than a smokescreen for what the Government are really trying to do: take sweeping new powers over the whole of local government.
I have taken some stick in my time in local government. I was one of those whom many people loved to hate in those days; perhaps they still do. I took a lot of stick for defending previous Conservative Governments when they did things that the Labour party said were interfering in local government, but I have never tried to defend anything as draconian or as sweeping as this Bill. It goes a lot further than anything that Labour Members might accuse us of.
It is important that, before we get into the details of the new clause, we ensure that we understand in some detail what best value means. I am happy to listen to the Government on that. The Government define best value as continuous improvement in the way in which a local authority's functions are exercised.
I can live with that, but it leads me to ask yet another question: if a local authority continuously improves, in accordance with the definition, does not require capping when it starts down the process, and continues to conduct its affairs in a way that does not require capping for three years, why will the Minister need those powers? Why should he need to deal with a council that is behaving in exactly the way that he requires?
As well as the definition of best value, the Government set out tests that should be applied when considering whether best value is applicable. They say, surprise, surprise, that they want best value to be judged by the three Es: economy, efficiency and effectiveness. I have little doubt that the Government will issue a press release or two saying how they invented that wonderful test and how the wicked Government from whom they took over had no concept, but I explained my credentials to make it clear that it was Conservative councils, under a Conservative Government, who tested, tried and introduced the very things that the Labour party claims as its own.
Because of my background, I can live with what the Government are describing as the tests for best value, but that leads me to another question that I hope the Minister will answer. If a local authority uses its resources economically, delivers services effectively and efficiently and continues to be economic, effective and efficient for three years, why should the Secretary of State need powers? What interference is intended that goes beyond the tests specified in the Bill?
Having expressed some of my own doubts, I should perhaps give the Government the benefit of the doubt, and invite the House to consider the implications of assuming that best value will work. If the House accepts the Government's argument that it will work, it must also accept our argument that the draconian powers in the Bill are not needed to deal with the councils that are making it work. Perhaps, however, the Government are saying that it is not enough to deliver best value. Perhaps they are saying that it is not enough for councils to live within the three Es. Is there something else that they want?

If not, why do they need powers to use against councils that are manifestly abiding by not just the letter but the spirit of the law?

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend may receive the answer that the Government will reward local authorities, in which case there will be a reference to "beacon authorities". I hope that he has examined the requirements for "beacon authorities", which are very politically correct. Such authorities must follow a Government trend: if they want the financial benefits, they will be forced down that road by bribery. As a result they will be labelled, and will be landed with more bureaucracy, more difficulties and possibly, in some instances, with opportunities to engage in greater corruption.

Mr. Wilshire: I thought at first that my hon. Friend was being generous to the Government, but, following his final comment, I realised that he was not. My argument, however, was not that the Labour party had an answer along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, but that it did not have a single answer to any of the questions that I or anyone else had asked. Labour Members have been sitting there all the evening not saying a word. Perhaps my hon. Friend was being generous after all in suggesting that they have a counter-argument.
If I am wrong and there is no secret agenda over and above best value and the three Es, there is no reason for Labour Members not to vote for new clause 5, which does nothing that they say they are against.
Before we vote, it is essential for us to ensure that we understand exactly what the new clause seeks to do. It seeks to time-limit certain of the draconian powers that the Government are trying to take in respect of local democracy. In fact, there are 12 such powers, and I think that we should spend a moment considering each of them.
First, clause 5(2) seeks to empower the Secretary of State to order a review of best value practice. However, a council that is following best practice will not have to be ordered to conduct a review; it already will have conducted one or will be planning to do so. If the council is already doing a good job, why will the Government require a power to force it to do a good job? New clause 5 will remove the power, which manifestly is not needed.
9.45 pm
The second power that would be dealt with by the new clause is in clause 5(4), which states that the Secretary of State may order specific matters to be included in a review. However—again—if a council is behaving itself and is efficiently following best value, it will already be dealing with those matters. By definition, that is what best practice—the three Es—entails. Why, oh why will Labour Members today be voting against removing after three years a power to deal with councils that are manifestly behaving themselves? I simply cannot understand it.
In clause 5(4), my eye fell on paragraph e, which states that one of the ways in which some type of review or test should be conducted is
to assess the competitiveness of its performance in exercising the function by reference to the exercise of the same function, or similar functions, by other best value authorities"—
so far, so good; but then it goes on to say—
and by commercial and other businesses".


As I understand it, that means competitive tendering—the dreaded thing from which the Government said that they will spare us. It is lurking inside the Bill. Therefore, rather than abolishing competitive tendering, the Government are seeking powers in the Bill to force councils to operate it if they think that councils are not behaving themselves. It is another U-turn for which the Government should apologise to the nation.
The third power that the new clause seeks to remove is in clause 6(2), which would provide the Secretary of State with powers to order a council to include certain matters in a plan. Again, why do the Government need powers to order a council that is behaving itself to include something in a plan that it will already have included? I should have thought that part of the definition of best value—economy, efficiency and effectiveness—is to have a sensible plan. That is what it used to mean in my time in local government. Perhaps the Labour party has changed the definition, so that economy efficiency and effectiveness have been omitted. However, if best value means was it used to mean, why, oh why do the Government need powers to force a council that is behaving itself to behave itself?
The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh powers are all in clause 7(4). Just in case Labour Members feel that I am simply rehearsing an argument because I have been asked to do so by Opposition Front Benchers, I should say that I have some reservations on the provisions in clause 7. If we were to remove all the powers provided in the clause, we should be removing the powers of the auditor.
I should have thought that the Labour party would like to remove the auditor's powers, as the trouble with town halls is Labour sleaze. It should not be up to Conservative Members to weaken the auditor's power to expose the truth of Labour in local government. Happily, however, our new clause will not remove all of the auditor's powers. I simply ask my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), in giving the Opposition reply to the debate, to think carefully about whether he wants to help sleaze in Labour town halls. I am sure that he does not.
The eighth power that would be affected by passing new clause 5 deals with auditors issuing reports. Again, I have some anxiety about limiting the power of the auditor to issue reports. Clause 7(5)(c) says that the Secretary of State must take action on an auditor's report. On reflection, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne might agree that requiring the Secretary of State to act on something rather than trying to shuffle it away is what the Foreign Affairs Committee was doing with the Foreign Secretary—trying to persuade him not to sit on a report or to hide, but to act. Some reflection on that might not come amiss.
The ninth change that the new clause would bring about relates to clause 9(5), which says that if there is a critical report from the auditor, the Secretary of State must act. If we agree not to make the changes that I have just referred to, there is no need to take that provision out. I ask the House to think carefully about the fact that it is consequential on the previous provisions.
The tenth change is to clause 10(2), which gives the Secretary of State the power to direct that an inspection should take place. That brings me back to my complaints about many of the previous powers. Why do the Government want powers to enforce an inspection against

a council that is demonstrating best value? They must have some reason for wanting to demand an inspection of a council that is keeping to the rules, but I am blowed if I know what it is. I hope that we shall be enlightened on the secret agenda of wanting to demand an inquiry and send in inspectors when a council is following the rules. If there is no secret agenda, surely to goodness the Government will vote with us. The eleventh change, affecting clause 10(3), is consequential on that.
The final change is to clause 14. The first few lines of the clause show that all the draconian powers that the Labour Government want to take over local authorities are about the failure of best value. The Government appear to have no confidence in the idea, because in clause 14 they admit that it will not work. If it does not work, they want a range of powers for the Secretary of State. The Minister is looking puzzled, and well he should. The clause is an admission that the Government interference will be because of failure. The new clause is about success. Clause 14 should not apply to a council that succeeds and avoids all the traps that are listed. Why should those traps apply to a council that is behaving itself? So why is the Minister about to urge his colleagues to oppose a sensible new clause?
All 12 changes would only introduce a time limit. If a council co-operates with how the Government want it to behave, the provisions in the Bill need not apply. If councils behave, the draconian powers that the Government are taking need not apply to them. We are not saying that they should cease to apply immediately; we are giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. We are saying, "Let us be reasonable. It is a powerful argument, but let us allow three years to go by to make absolutely certain that the councils concerned really are genuine, are delivering what the Government want and are being effective in respect of the tests that are being applied. Only after three years should the powers elapse."
The case is overwhelming. New clause 5 would do only one thing. In the case of good local government, new clause 5 would hand power back to the people and if my memory serves me correctly, that was in the Labour party manifesto.

Mr. Fallon: I support new clause 5. On first inspection, it is a worthwhile improvement to the Bill. However, it was not until, with rather deceptive ingenuity, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) unveiled the arguments behind it that the House began to appreciate exactly how important it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) first elucidated the fact that the definition of powers in line 4 of the new clause is not the same as those listed in lines 1 and 2. The careful and gradual way in which my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex advanced the merits of the new clause first alerted us to its wider implications.
Above all, the new clause rejects intervention. It rejects capping—and prevents it from being exercised after three years although it is not referred to specifically in the first two lines. Nor does it allow any of the other interventionist powers to be exercised after three years. I did not like capping when the previous Government introduced it. Nor do I like the range of interventionist powers that have been taken under the Bill. One might well ask why we would like an override power. In the


final analysis an override power is subject to parliamentary approval and to an affirmative resolution. The Minister knows that to take that power he has to come to the House, make his case, approach the business managers and seek time.
New clause 5 has two overriding merits. First, it gives councils an incentive. The three-year period gives councils the incentive to get clear of the Secretary of State and the Department and to stay clear of them. That is a good thing; it strengthens local democracy and gives better performing councils something to aim for. They know that if they can get through three years without those particular powers having to be exercised, they cannot be exercised unless the override power is invoked. That is a very good incentive for local authorities to drive up their efficiency and improve the performance of the services that they deliver.
Secondly, the new clause introduces into local government legislation, perhaps for the first time, the concept of sunsetting. If, in the review of local government policy that he is clearly undertaking and the rethink to which he has referred, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex is further minded to look again at the technique of sunsetting—a regulatory power that will simply disappear if it is not used after three years—that will be most welcome. This technique is used extensively in other countries, such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Hall.]

Question agreed to.

As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Fallon: In our review of local government legislation and regulation, that system ought to be widely copied elsewhere.
The Government have set three Es as a test of best value, but these are superseded by a fourth. The Government talk of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. To that, those of us who defend local government add a fourth E—election. It is the key to the three-year period that each council knows that it must face the electorate, who in the end are the best judge of best value. That is why the borough council in Wandsworth, under Conservative control, was continually re-elected. That is why the loopy Liberal Democrat council in Tunbridge Wells was thrown out last May. In the end, the electorate—and not the Secretary of State or parliamentary orders—will determine what best value is.
Adding the new clause to the Bill will strengthen it. It will give councils a genuine incentive—way beyond the auditors who will troop through the town halls—to get free of central Government, to escape the interventionist powers, to improve their performance and to subject that performance to the ultimate test—the test of their electorate.

Mr. Forth: Perhaps I am out of sorts today, but I am yet to be persuaded of the virtues of the new clause—despite the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). In spite of what many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, I am not sure that the drafting of the new clause stands very much scrutiny. I have a number of questions on the new clause for my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who is to reply to the debate from the Opposition Front Bench.
I will refer later to the question of why should the Secretary of State not exercise the powers, which a number of my hon. Friends have touched on. My first point arises from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), and concerns the basis of the selection of clauses referred to in the new clause.
The new clause mentions clauses 5(2), 5(4) and 6(2) which are self-explanatory, but I am puzzled by the selection of the elements of clause 7. More than that, I want to query why clause 7 is included at all. Clauses 5 and 6 refer explicitly to the Secretary of State, and deal with eventualities where the Secretary of State does not invoke his powers, which therefore lapse after three years. Logically, clauses 5(2), 5(4) and 6(2) refer to the Secretary of State.
Clause 7 refers to:
A performance plan published by a best value authority … shall be audited by the authority's auditor.
The Secretary of State is not mentioned at all. I am perplexed, because clause 7 does not refer to anything that the Secretary of State does.

Mr. Jenkin: The powers in clause 7(4)(c) refer to clause 6, which says that the Secretary of State will
specify matters which an authority must include in a plan for a financial year".
If the Secretary of State does not do that, clause 7(4)(c) and (e) are redundant. As for clause 7(4)(f), we do not want the Secretary of State to be recommended to take action under clause 14 when he no longer has any powers, assuming that they fall away.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for trying to help, but I am not quite there yet, because clause 7(4) says:
In relation to an authority's performance plan the auditor shall issue a report".
It mentions the auditor, not the Secretary of State, so I cannot see how the initial part of the new clause will apply and why clause 7 is mentioned at all.

Mr. Jenkin: I will give my right hon. Friend an example. Suppose that, in the three-year period, the auditor issued a report recommending intervention by the Secretary of State under clause 14, that recommendation would be enough under the new clause to suspend the passage of the three years towards the eclipse of the powers, and the period would have to start again.

Mr. Forth: I will take my hon. Friend's word for it. Perhaps when I reflect later on what he has said, I will see that he has explained the matter satisfactorily.
My next problem with the wording of the new clause concerns our old friends "and" and "or". As I read it, the provision would come into effect only if absolutely all the powers mentioned are not exercised by the Secretary of State. That is an excessive limitation. I would like £1 for every time that I have heard the word "sunset" in this debate, but the sun will never set if my interpretation of the new clause is correct. The likelihood of the Secretary of State failing to exercise even one of the powers is extremely small, even though, as some of my hon. Friends have said, the circumstances in which he failed to act would be when a very successful local authority was doing everything that it should.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex may have answered my next question in his excellent introduction to this debate. The new clause says that
the powers in this Act shall only be exercised
in certain circumstances. I gather that to mean all the powers in the Act. My hon. Friend made an excellent analysis of the capping, pseudo-capping, perhaps-capping, modern-capping or focus-capping—whatever the new phrase is that we are supposed to use—which was helpful because it gave us an idea of the scope of the new clause, which some of us at first thought was rather limited. We now find to our pleasant surprise that it is very wide ranging indeed and would have a cataclysmic effect were it ever implemented.
Subsection (2) would require that a draft should be
laid before, and approved by resolution, of each House of Parliament.
That provision is familiar, but I wonder whether any difficulties are envisaged in relation to reform of the other place. We are in new territory, and none of us knows what effect reform will have.
Until now, we could be confident of provisions such as these. We have seen them all before, and they are perfectly standard. It is even reassuring, constitutionally, that a measure of such importance requires approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. The present size of the Government' s majority makes the outcome of a vote in the House of Commons fairly predictable, though only for the present. We may think that we know how the other place would react at present, but we cannot predict anything given the uncertainty around the reform proposals for that other place.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex may wish to comment on that element of unpredictability as it could have a fundamental effect on whether the measure could be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
I apologise for giving such a detailed analysis. My hon. Friend has partly reassured me, but my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne may reassure me further when he sums up. If the Minister inexplicably suggests that he will not accept the excellent new clause 5, we will then be fully motivated to support it in a Division.

Mr. Waterson: I am delighted to speak at the end of an important and useful debate on a sunset provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) explained, new clause 5 proposes that the powers listed in the clause—all of them, which may reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—should cease to have effect if the Secretary of State does not have recourse to them for a period of three consecutive years.
A council that consistently performed well and kept its council tax within limits deemed by the Government to be reasonable would be allowed the freedom to set its own budget and to determine its own strategy for improving services. It would remain liable to reimposition of the Bill's powers if Parliament deemed it necessary, and the sword of Damocles that the Bill hangs over the councils would provide a strong incentive to ensure that they did their utmost to act responsibly and in the interests of their communities. That would be a welcome first step towards ending bureaucratic central controls on local government.
Every Government regrets capping powers. No Government embraces those powers with enthusiasm. However, the Labour Government went out of their way when they were in opposition to oppose crude and universal capping, which is one of the powers mentioned in new clause 5. The Local Government Association, among others, has backed a time limit on the Bill's capping scheme, and we have heard valuable speeches on that theme this evening. Alas, it is remarkable that not a single speech came from those on the Government Benches. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex rightly quoted extensively from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when describing how we as a party were re-assessing and recalibrating our policies towards local government and how we wanted to see local government in the future much freer to make its own decisions and to strive in its own way for excellence. We wish to move away from capping in any shape or form.
10.15 pm
The dreadful truth has dawned on much of local government that they were taken in by this Government when they were in opposition. The Government are taking extreme and draconian powers according to any view of them, and they should have a sunset or sell-by date. A similar point was made by an amendment tabled in Committee by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), in a powerful contribution based on his extensive experience, talked about whether these powers were powers in perpetuity. He asked whether we could test the Government's real determination not to reach for these extensive powers in the future and he mentioned a choice between a nirvana for local government and what he called the open prison of the provisions in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) welcomed new clause 5 on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, which made me question how good an idea it was. I have overcome that natural reluctance and their support—like support from anywhere—is welcome. I trust that they will join us in the Lobby tonight. The hon. Gentleman described the powers proposed by the Government as invidious. I know that he chooses his words carefully and that is not too extreme a word to use in this context.
We heard a characteristically intellectually powerful contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). He has the intellect to plumb the deep subtleties of new clause 5, as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex. With his usual eloquence, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset


demonstrated why it matters to have a time limit and a life put on these powers. He revealed some excellent research into other examples through parliamentary history and traced the history of a crucially relevant parliamentary doctrine, all too sadly lost sight of in these careless times.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), from his vast experience, made the historical link between compulsory competitive tendering and best value, making the crucial point that those are not two antipathetic concepts. In many ways, one has grown out of the other. Best value would not be a starter without the hard work put into CCT. He described new clause 5 as simplicity itself, but I would not go quite that far.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) also talked of the benefits of CCT and the possibility of the Government coming back after three years to obtain the powers, if any councils did start to misbehave. Therefore—and this is the key point of the debate—the onus must be on the Minister to justify why the Government cannot accept new clause 5. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) spoke from his impressive background in local government and he was right to point out the yawning gap in this debate between rhetoric and reality. He questioned whether the power was really necessary in perpetuity when a council is behaving itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) spoke persuasively about the regulatory technique in the new clause and its use in other jurisdictions. We heard a characteristic contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who queried the exact extent of the powers and talked of problems in the wording. He is right to regard the phrase
the powers in this Act
as encompassing not only the clauses specifically referred to in new clause 5 but to all the powers contained in the Bill. If the Minister is bursting to tell the House that his advice was otherwise and that the new clause will not have the effect that is claimed for it, does he at least accept the principle behind it?
To sum up, we want to know the Government's real intentions in respect of the substantial powers that the Secretary of State is gathering to himself. As I have said, the onus must be on the Minister to justify the need for those powers not to be time limited. As we have seen, it is still possible for the Government to come back to the House in the future to renew those powers, if they feel that to be necessary, but for them to maintain that they need those powers in perpetuity, despite pious promises that they will not use them unless absolutely necessary, is another example of the nanny state gone mad.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): Like the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), I find it difficult to respond to new clause 4,

not least because, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) correctly pointed out—[Interruption.]

Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we debating new clause 5, on which I was speaking, or new clause 4 as the Minister has just said?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are definitely debating new clause 5 and have been doing so for the past two hours.

Mr. Meale: To return to what I was saying, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst correctly identified that new clause 5 was incorrectly drafted. There is no doubt about that. If hon. Members have any doubts on the matter, I point out to them that the reference in the new clause to the Secretary of State's powers under clause 7(4b), (4c) and (4f) in fact relates to duties on the best value auditor. Similarly, although the new clause states that clause 7(5c) and clause 9(5) refer to the powers of the Secretary of State, those clauses actually set out the duties of best value auditors and best value auditing respectively, but never mind.
Undoubtedly, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was able to identify that the new clause was poorly drafted because of his great experience during nine years as a member of the previous Administration. However, we understood the gist of what Conservative Members were trying to achieve in new clause 5 because of its reference to the Secretary of State's powers in clauses 5, 6, 10 and 14; that gave us sufficient clues as to their intentions.
New clause 5 seems to raise two issues. The first is that of parliamentary scrutiny of the use of the powers in the Bill. We have dealt with that on several occasions, but shall do so again. The second issue is that of the regularity of use of powers, where the Opposition's objectives are more difficult to fathom.
In respect of parliamentary scrutiny, once again the Opposition are trying to make one approach fit all, in the time-honoured tradition of compulsory competitive tendering, which was honoured in no other way. They seem to want to impose affirmative scrutiny on the use of almost all powers, whether they are powers of intervention, the conferring of new powers or technical amendments to performance indicators. A number of hon. Members hold particular views on CCT, and we accept that under CCT there were some advantages in terms of efficiency. However, lowest cost, inflexibility, evasion and conflict have hampered good management and good quality services, and best value will sort that out. We reject the approach that the Opposition have set out in the new clauses and amendments that they have tabled.
Throughout, we have taken an approach to scrutiny that is based on proportionality, whereby the powers in the Bill that affect other legislation or widen the scope of best value attract the most rigorous scrutiny. By the same token, the approach to amendments to the internal framework for performance indicators, reviews and plans is based on consultation with the practitioners, such as best value authorities and the Audit Commission. That flexible and thoughtful approach contrasts with the knee-jerk reaction displayed by Conservative Members.
The notion that any attempt to use order-making powers in respect of a specific authority should be governed by the length of the period that has elapsed since


the powers were previously used, or by whether the powers have been used at all, is bizarre. I can understand why Conservative Members might be concerned about the possibility of vindictive or malicious targeting of particular authorities when there is a change of political control over those authorities or when there is a change of Government, but are they seriously advocating that the use of the Secretary of State's powers to direct inspectors or to intervene in cases of serious failure should be restricted in the way they suggest?

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Meale: No. I have sat for more than five hours listening to a variety of speeches that have gone far wider than the scope of the amendments.
Failure is failure, no matter where or when it occurs—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must be heard, but there is far too much background noise in the Chamber. The House must come to order.

Mr. Meale: To repeat, failure is failure, no matter where or when it occurs. Ministers must have the opportunity to tackle it swiftly and decisively, so we must reject arbitrary restrictions such as those set out in the new clause on the Secretary of State's freedom to act. Similarly, where aspects of the framework, such as the requirements for reviews of plans, need to be adjusted to take account of how best practice is evolving, the sort of mechanistic rules set out in the amendment would rule out any form of sensible or helpful action.
Amendment No. 83 would have the effect of making any direction given as a result of the recommendation of a best value inspector to an authority that had not received a direction in the previous three years conditional on an order being laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That would impose unacceptable time restraints on the ability of the Secretary of State to react to the problems that had led to the recommendation being made.
It is normal for the Secretary of State to have a certain degree of discretion in exercising his role of enforcement, and to subject that discretion to parliamentary scrutiny would be an overreaction. Where a direction has been recommended and an independent inspector has considered the situation, the Secretary of State will have the opportunity to judge the facts and any representation made by the authority before preparing a direction. He will also have the power, if he believes it necessary, to direct that a local inquiry be held to ascertain the views of local people on the matter in question.
Where intervention is recommended to address a serious or persistent failure in the delivery of services, delay might lead to vulnerable groups being left unprotected and to problems worsening if—

Sir Paul Beresford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am curious as to whether the Minister is answering the debate on the right clause, because the subject that he is now describing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is in perfect order. If he had been otherwise, I would have told him so.

Mr. Meale: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman himself referred to the difficulties that delay

due to a requirement for parliamentary consent would cause to organisations, especially voluntary ones, whose response to a failure was hampered.
The new clause and the amendment may be honestly meant, but I think a few honest mistakes were made in their drafting. We believe they are wrongly tuned and inadvisable. I ask the Opposition to withdraw the new clause. If they will not, I must urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 330.

Division N0.126[
[10.30.pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Allan, Richard
Gibb, Nick


Amess, David
Gill, Christopher


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gray, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Green, Damian


Baker, Norman
Greenway, John


Baldry, Tony
Grieve, Dominic


Ballard, Jackie
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Beggs, Roy
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hammond, Philip


Bercow, John
Hawkins, Nick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hayes, John


Blunt, Crispin
Heald, Oliver


Body, Sir Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Boswell, Tim
Hogg, RI Hon Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Horam, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Brady, Graham
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brake, Tom
Hunter, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Jenkin, Bernard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)



Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Keetch, Paul


Burnett, John
Key, Robert


Bums, Simon
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Burstow, Paul
Kirkwood, Archy


Butterfill, John
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lansley, Andrew



Leigh, Edward


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Chidgey, David
Lidington, David


Chope, Christopher
Livsey, Richard


Clappison, James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Loughton, Tim


Collins, Tim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Colvin, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Madel, Sir David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Malins, Humfrey


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)
Mates, Michael



Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan, Alan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Duncan Smith, lain
Moore, Michael


Faber, David
Moss, Malcolm


Fabricant, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Oaten, Mark


Flight, Howard
Öpik, Lembit


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ottaway, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Page, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paice, James


Fraser, Christopher
Prior, David


Gamier, Edward
Randall, John






Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Robathan, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tyler, Paul


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tyrie, Andrew


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Viggers, Peter


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Walter, Robert


Ruffley, David
Wardle, Charles


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Waterson, Nigel


St Aubyn, Nick
Webb, Steve


Sanders, Adrian
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Whittingdale, John


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Willetts, David


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Willis, Phil


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wilshire, David


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Steen, Anthony
Woodward, Shaun


Streeter, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Stunell, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and 


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mr. Stephen Day.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Dr Lynda


Allen, Graham
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Austin, John
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Battle, John
Cohen, Harry


Bayley, Hugh
Coleman, Iain


Beard, Nigel
Colman, Tony


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Connarty, Michael


Begg, Miss Anne
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Corbett, Robin


Bennett, Andrew F
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benton, Joe
Corston, Ms Jean


Bermingham, Gerald
Cranston, Ross


Berry, Roger
Crausby, David


Best, Harold
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Betts, Clive
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Blackman, Liz
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Blizzard, Bob
(Copeland)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Borrow, David
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradshaw, Ben
Darvill, Keith


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davidson, Ian


Browne, Desmond
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Buck, Ms Karen
Dawson, Hilton


Burden, Richard
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burgon, Colin
Denham, John


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dismore, Andrew


Cabom, Richard
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Doran, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dowd, Jim


Cann, Jamie
Drew, David


Caplin, Ivor
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Casale, Roger
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Caton, Martin
Edwards, Huw


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Efford, Clive


Chaytor, David
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Clapham, Michael
Ennis, Jeff





Etherington, Bill
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Fisher, Mark
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kemp, Fraser


Flint, Caroline
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Flynn, Paul
Khabra, Piara S


Follett, Barbara
Kidney, David


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Foulkes, George
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fyfe, Maria
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Galbraith, Sam
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Galloway, George
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Gapes, Mike
Laxton, Bob


Gardiner, Barry
Lepper, David


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Leslie, Christopher


Gerrard, Neil
Levitt, Tom


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Livingstone, Ken


Godsiff, Roger
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Goggins, Paul
Lock, David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Love, Andrew


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McAllion, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McAvoy, Thomas


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McCabe, Steve


Grocott, Bruce
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Grogan, John
McDonagh, Siobhain


Hain, Peter
Macdonald, Calum


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McDonnell, John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McFall, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mclsaac, Shona


Hanson, David
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mackinlay, Andrew


Healey, John
MacShane, Denis


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
McWalter, Tony


Hepburn, Stephen
McWilliam, John


Heppell, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hesford, Stephen
Mallaber, Judy


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hill, Keith
Marek, Dr John


Hinchliffe, David
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hoey, Kate
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Home Robertson, John
Martlew, Eric


Hood, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Hoon, Geoffrey
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hope, Phil
Meale, Alan


Hopkins, Kelvin
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Michie, Bill (Shef?ld Heeley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howells, Dr Kim
Miller, Andrew


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hurst. Alan
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hutton, John
Morley, Elliot


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Illsley, Eric
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mudie, George


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mullin, Chris


Jamieson, David
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Norris, Dan


(Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Ms Jenny
O'Neill, Martin


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pendry, Tom


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Perham, Ms Linda


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pickthall. Colin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pike, Peter L






Plaskitt, James
Stevenson, George


Pollard, Kerry
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pond, Chris
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pound, Stephen
Stinchcombe, Paul


Powell, Sir Raymond
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Primarolo, Dawn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Purchase, Ken



Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Radice, Giles
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rammell, Bill
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Timms, Stephen


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tipping, Paddy


Rooney, Terry
Todd, Manic


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Touhig, Don


Rowlands, Ted
Trickett, Jon


Roy Frank
Truswell, Paul


Ruane Chris
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Ruddock Joan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Vaz, Keith


Savidge, Malcolm
Ward, Ms Claire


Sawford Phil, 
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
Watts, David



White,Brian


Shaw, Jonathan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)



Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Winnick, David


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Woolas, Phil


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Snape, Peter
Wyatt, Derek


Soley, Clive



Squire, Ms Rachel
Tellers for the Noes:


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. Greg Pope and


Steinberg, Gerry
Mrs. Anne McGuire

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): In view not only of the lack of progress on the Bill, but of the Opposition's unwillingness even to discuss the time required for it, tomorrow's business will now be an allocation of time motion, followed by the remaining stages of the Local Government Bill. The business previously announced for tomorrow will now be taken at a later date.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The question before the House is debatable and I assume that the Leader of the House has made that statement as part of the debate.

Mr. Jenkin: A large number of amendments have yet to be discussed which raise serious matters about the Bill.

We have yet to discuss the principle of capping and council tax benefit subsidy limitation; the application of best value duty to police authorities; the definition of the general duty of best value; the limiting of the Secretary of State's powers, requiring him to take independent advice; the widening of the duty to consult to include non-commercial organisation; and such vital matters as whether the Henry VIII clause should be limited in duration, as such clauses should be.
Serious constitutional issues are embodied in the Bill, it being the most draconian local government Bill that the House has ever seen. We are prepared to put in the time tonight to discuss these matters. [Interruption.] The question is why the Government would prefer to go home rather than do the work that they were elected to do.
We know what the Government want. They want a soft life. They want to go early to bed with their teddy bears and hot milk instead of doing the job for which they were elected. The Government will get the Bill through by guillotining further consideration of these matters. Many important issues that we wish to discuss may not be discussed. No doubt the Government's sittings motion will put the remaining Government business first in the order of consideration and there will be no further discussion of the matters that we regard as important. The Government will then regard that as sufficient consideration of the Bill.
There is time tonight to discuss these matters, but the Government would prefer to go to bed. That is a dereliction of their duty and an arrogant stifling of democratic debate in the House. I therefore oppose the motion.

Mr. Frank Field: Some of us, as the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, may be going home to our teddy bears tonight, but British troops may be in the air to carry out Government policy and may die in the process. Surely it is inappropriate that the House of Commons should continue with this sort of saga during the night when important issues are at stake.
The plain fact is, as I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), that if the Government want the Bill they will get it. They have the majority to do so. No amount of sitting here tonight will make any difference to that.
Surely, as the country approaches war, it would wrong of the House to be giving such a display of party politics.

Mr. John Gummer: Our next discussion would have been about democracy in local government and how local people might have decided what they wanted to do with their own local authority. It is very serious that so many Labour Members shouted when it was suggested that we should discuss these serious matters one after another. It is all very well for the Leader of the House, who never answered a question seriously when she was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, either because she could not or—

Mrs. Beckett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No, I am not giving way. The right hon. Lady never answered a question.

Mrs. Beckett: I thought that I should correct the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friends were saying, "You have not been here all evening, so why are you concerned?"

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Lady showed so much courtesy to the House that she did not even allow any


discussion before getting to her feet to say that she was not having any more debate. She is not in a position to teach anyone anything, because she was never willing to answer any questions when she was in charge of a Department.
We are discussing a serious matter and we wish to go on to discuss democracy in local authorities. Year after year after year, the right hon. Lady complained in the House if anyone suggested that any decision should be made that was contrary to the wishes of Labour-controlled local authorities. I suggest that Labour Members want to introduce the various draconian measures that are before the House because they know that they will not control many local authorities in the future. They will therefore not come into conflict with Labour local authorities in the coming months and years.
I say to the right hon. Lady, if she is listening, that there is no need for draconian rules when local authorities are run by Conservatives because we are, by nature, careful with ratepayers' money. She and her hon. Friends are making a great mistake: they believe that they have to make such decisions, because otherwise they will be faced with recalcitrant authorities over which they do not have control.
We have given Labour Members a way out, but it is worrying that they will not take it. That way out is giving local people the right to decide for themselves whether they want an increase above that which the Government are willing to give them. That is what we would have discussed. The proposed Adjournment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The question before us is narrowly drawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to widen it too far. Would he please return to discussing the question before us?

Mr. Gummer: The motion before the House stops us discussing democracy in local government. This House is supposed to be the guardian of democracy.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has affronted the House by saying that we should not be discussing democracy because of what might be happening over Kosovo? Are not we entering into a dispute in Kosovo for the sake of democracy? During the second world war, did not such discussions continue? The House did not go into abeyance for five years. The House of Commons—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This intervention is far too long.

Mr. Gummer: I will not follow that line because of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is all very well for Labour Members to believe that this is a convenient time at which to point out that, because of their majority, they can make such decisions. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—who is my pair and who kindly described me in such terms—that it is true that the Government could carry through any measure they liked. However,

one of the things that the Government, particularly the Leader of the House, should learn is that power also demands responsibility, and that continually using the power of the majority to avoid discussing issues that matter to minorities is the plea of those who do not believe in democracy.
The Leader of the House would do her side much more good if, instead of smiling away on the Front Bench, she seriously asked herself whether local authorities were not important enough for the debate to continue, if necessary, in government time tomorrow and the day after. If she would give us that open-ended commitment, we would be happy to go home now and to continue tomorrow and the day after. In the meantime, she must accept that the House is the place where those issues should and need to be debated, because that is what democracy is about.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that the position of Leader of the House is more than that of a Minister? The Leader of the House has an obligation to the House as a whole.

Mr. Gummer: I could emphasise that, but the present Leader of the House has rarely displayed that part of her role. I would like her to do so, but I have not so far seen it. Therefore, rather than appeal to that part of her role, I appeal to something that should be deep in her heart: a commitment to democracy. This is about local government. As. I think, the longest-serving local government Minister in the House, I do not remember not being willing to listen to her on democracy in local government. I sat through her speeches time and again.
I was not terribly well informed as a result of what the Leader of the House said, but as Leader of the House she should not have got up as she did, not even allowing time to discuss whether we should have the motion. She insisted on pushing her guillotine motion because she is after no debate, no discussion, no democracy. The fact that she has done that just before the debate on a new clause to open up local government to local democracy, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), is a great sadness.
I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow me to say that, in her position as Leader of the House, the right hon. Lady should think again, perhaps show the courtesy that would come well from a party that claims to believe in democracy, and allow time for the matter to be debated properly.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: About 32 hon. Members have spoken in the debate so far: five have been called by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the other 27 or 28 have been talking non-stop on the Labour Back Benches. It is clear that they want to contribute to what is going on.
It would be useful to know whether the Leader of the House believes that her statement at the beginning of the debate was supposed to be a substitute for the business statement that she may want to make tomorrow, changing the business for tomorrow. Was it in accordance with precedence? Was her contribution to the debate a substitute for the business statement, on which she would normally expect to be questioned? If she is trying to avoid questioning, it compounds the offence of the way the Government have tried to curtail today's debate.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has made a valuable point. It does not deal with the threatened guillotine. In practice, the issue being debated is not just whether the House adjourns tonight, which is a debatable motion, but whether the Government are right to say, at the first whiff of discussion in the House of Commons, "We want to drop the guillotine on the debate."
Local government had to face the Government consultation, where the Government said that it could not argue for the present system—it could have any type of democracy except what this country had been used to. I believe that the House would be right to debate the issue for an hour and a half, or two and a half hours. I believe that, if the Leader of the House, who seems to be absent from the Chamber—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Where is she?"]—is forced to make another business statement tomorrow, there will be the possibility of another hour of questions and answers. I will not anticipate points of order, but it strikes me that the Leader of the House would have been better advised to listen to the advice of her Whips. She would have done better to allow tonight's debate to continue in an even-tempered way, and, if necessary, to allocate more time to the Report stage.

11 pm

Mr. John Greenway: Is it not extraordinary that, half an hour after the moving of the business motion at 10 pm, a motion was moved to curtail the debate?

Mr. Bottomley: It may try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I explain how that is consistent with a number of other actions taken by the present Government; but the key point for the House of Commons is that the debate could have continued until midnight, or slightly later. The only reason for the threat issued by the Leader of the House is the fact that the Government do not want the House to discuss, in detail, alternatives to their plans for local government. That will be noted in Worthing, in Arun district council and in West Sussex county council. [Interruption.] The laughter of Labour Members will be seen in parallel with the failure of their party to put up candidates in local government by-elections on the south coast.
The party that claims to govern for the nation is not playing its part in competition for elections to local government throughout the country. I believe that the party will be seen through, that as and when the consequences of its iron rule here are noted it will pay the penalty in local government, and that, whatever it does with the Bill, it will regret its action tonight. It is undemocratic and wrong.

Mr. Sanders: Liberal Democrats understand the frustration that the Government must feel. Certainly we could have made far more progress than we have made but for the filibustering tendencies of certain Conservative Members. Members of the official Opposition raised many important points—although some took a long time over it—but many more still need to be raised.

Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If an hon. Member was filibustering, would that not be ruled out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman can safely leave such matters to the Chair.

Mr. Sanders: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his filibustering intervention.
Many important facets of the Bill still need to be debated. The Bill alters the relationship between local government and central Government in what we consider to be an adverse way. It confers powers on the Secretary of State that previously resided with the House, or with local government. We have yet to debate the important amendments on the principle of capping. Labour Members have spent the last 18 years criticising the Conservatives in that connection, but they may not now be able to hear the debate in full tomorrow.
The application of best value duty to police and other authorities,the definition of the general duty of best value, the limitation to the Secretary of State's powers of requiring him to take independent advice and the proposal to limit the duration of the Henry VIII clause are all important issues, but what the Leader of the House has done has a further disadvantage: it has prevented Liberal Democrats from debating their amendments, and we may not now have the time that we would otherwise have had to debate them.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made an important point. We have forces on their way overseas on our behalf. If we cannot debate the best value provisions, perhaps the House should sit through the night to debate that matter.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a perfectly sound point about the desirability of debating events in Kosovo. Is not the proper action for the House to convene tomorrow to debate policy towards the former Yugoslavia and Kosovo, and to debate this matter tonight?

Mr. Sanders: I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as do other Liberal Democrat Members, who will vote against the motion. I have made my point. This is a very sad day for democracy, and particularly for local democracy. The Bill is an attack on the ballot box in local councils and on people's right to determine who controls their council—local councillors or central Government.

Mr. Forth: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), perhaps inadvertently, let the cat out of the bag. He said words to the effect—I cannot quote him exactly—of, "The Government will get their Bill anyway—so what's the point in debating it?"

Mr. Field: rose—

Mr. Forth: rose—

Mr. Forth: He will correct me.

Mr. Field: I said that merely on the basis of my experience as an hon. Member for 20 years, watching the Conservative party in government.

Mr. Forth: Whatever the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's comment, it revealed what is in the minds of Labour Members—in the mind even of a distinguished and respected Government Back Bencher such as him. The gist of his remark was, "There's no point in continuing a rather futile debate on the Bill. Let's just get


on with the Bill, because the Government have a huge majority." That seems to be the attitude of Government Back Benchers.

Mr. Hogg: Is there not another aspect to my right hon. Friend's comments—that, plainly, the Government Whips had caused their own Back Benchers to abstain from the debate, thus preventing a proper debate on the Bill?

Mr. Forth: Yes; regrettably, it is true. My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. Hon. Members who have been in the Chamber throughout the debate are very conscious of the fact that no Government Back Bencher spoke in it. Although that may be a matter for Government Back Benchers. I suspect—as my right hon. and learned Friend said—that it is much more likely to have been a matter for the Government Whips, ruthlessly suppressing any contribution by their own Back Benchers to the debate, and accusing Opposition Members of prolonging it.

Mr. Hogg: Is not the true position either that Government Back Benchers are not concerned about the issues involved in the Bill, or that a gagging order has been imposed on them to shut them up? It is one or the other. Which does my right hon. Friend think it is?

Mr. Forth: I regret to say that there were so few Government Back Benchers present for the debate that it was almost impossible to tell which it was—but I assume that it was their indifference to the Bill's substance, as they did not trouble even to come into the Chamber and listen to the debate, never mind participate in it.
Let us consider the point that we had reached in the debate. As many hon. Members will know, there are 12 groups of amendments for our consideration today. We have dealt with two of the groups, and the next group was intimately related to the one that we have just finished considering. The Government have, quite arbitrarily, interrupted the debate at a completely inappropriate time. It is bad enough that they are seeking to truncate the debate, but to do it in the manner that they chose shows that they are completely uninterested in the substance and nature of the amendments that were being debated.
Quite arbitrarily, the Government decided prematurely to finish off the debate. Moreover, as the Leader of the House said, the Government will tomorrow move a guillotine motion, further to restrict debate on this important Bill. That shows the Government's overall attitude to the House and to legislation, which is: no debate at all; no participation by Government Back Benchers; a minimum amount of time; arbitrary truncation of the debate, at a time when the House is perfectly capable of continuing with it; and—to add insult to injury—a provocative announcement by the Leader of the House that she will tomorrow move a guillotine motion further to reduce debate.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a delicious—if that is the right word—irony that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) can talk about the events in Kosovo, where British troops are going to fight the forces of fascism, which are engaged

against democracy, when in this House, which is the seat of democracy, we hear that the Leader of the House is trying to curtail democratic debate? Is he not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that point already this evening.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I would not dream of arguing with his point. I accept it completely.
Are the Government going to allow proper consideration of legislation in this House and in another place? The Government's arbitrary and artificial restriction of debate here is bad enough, but what they are proposing to do in another place compounds that, because the Bill will not receive proper consideration there either.

Mr. Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend return to the point that he made about the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? There is a difference between saying that one side can always win a vote and being prepared to give time for a debate in case something should come out of it that would enable the Government to improve the Bill. That is an important element of democracy. Even if we lose the vote, such debates enable the Government to change their mind.

Mr. Forth: Ironically, as my right hon. Friend knows well, this evening we debated a group of amendments that arose from consideration in Committee. The Government came forward with amendments, they were duly debated and the House had an opportunity to decide whether to vote on them. In the middle of that process, we are going to be denied further proper consideration. I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider what she has peremptorily and arbitrarily done this evening. Even now it is not too late. She has an opportunity during this brief debate to reconsider what she has done and to reflect on the damage that her decision will do to the image of a Government already tainted with the perception of arrogance, which is developing in the House and outside.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the damage to the Government's reputation will come not just from their treatment of the House, but from their contempt for local democracy? We are debating local democracy and good conduct in local government. Their reputation as the enemies of local government will be exacerbated by their behaviour tonight.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right. We are talking about a triple whammy. The Government have mounted an assault on local government and democracy, on democratic processes in the House of Commons, and on the role that the other place has played for so long in terms of proper checks and balances against the Executive in our legislature. There is a triple threat to the traditions of democracy.

Mr. Hogg: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is yet another dimension? The reluctance of Labour Back Benchers to protest about the truncation of debate is worrying. As Back Benchers, they should be concerned that they are not able to participate for longer tonight on such an important matter. Is that not a cause for concern to my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Forth: This is where beds, teddy bears and cocoa come into the matter. I suspect that the Government
121212121212121


Whips felt unable to ask or require their Back Benchers to remain in the House of Commons—never mind participate in the debate—and in their desperate anxiety to get them off home as quickly as possible, the Government are prepared to sacrifice the proper, traditional processes of the House. It is completely unacceptable.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that what will not be understood in local government and outside the House in general is the inconsistency of the Government's approach? If they had intended to curtail debate this early, why did they move the 10 o'clock motion? What was the point of moving the 10 o'clock motion if they intended to close down the debate early?

Mr. Forth: I hope that when the Government reply to the debate—I hope they will do us that courtesy in order further to explain their motivation—they will answer my hon. Friend's valid point. It seems odd that, when only a few minutes earlier the Government had invoked a process that would prolong the debate, they then sought to close it down. We must have an explanation of what on earth is going on, what is in the Government's mind and, more particularly, an assurance that the Leader of the House will reconsider what she has done and seek to find simple, straightforward ways—in which I am sure we would co-operate—to allow the debate to continue properly, so that this important Bill receives proper consideration.

Mr. Wilshire: The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a fair point. He had my sympathy and I was beginning to be persuaded by what he said until his final comment. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), I wrote down what the right hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech. He said that no amount of sitting here will make any difference. I assumed that he was aiming that comment at us, but on reflection, perhaps he was saying how he feels when he bothers to come to the House and make a speech as it makes no difference, given the way in which the Government have treated him.

Mr. Field: It is important that the hon. Gentleman distinguishes between my main speech and secondary interventions that I made in response to points arising from the debate. In public discourse such as this, it is useful to make a distinction between primary and secondary causes.
I was saying that tonight British troops may die carrying out Government policy and it is inappropriate for us to be squabbling in this way. A secondary point was that general elections decide who govern and roughly on what terms. The Opposition have a duty to conduct a five-year election campaign. Some Opposition Members have not realised that they have made their point and they continue to embroider it. I think that we should begin to draw conclusions from the debate and that we should adjourn in a sober mood, considering what is happening elsewhere.

Mr. Wilshire: I made exactly that point. At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman was

making an effective point. He is the only Labour Member to say that he wants a discourse. That is approximately what we are saying; we would like a debate across the Chamber, but only the right hon. Member for Birkenhead is willing to do that.

Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been very much better had the Leader of the House got up and said that, owing to the serious nature of the announcement earlier, she would seek the adjournment of the House, that tomorrow we would discuss the issues of Kosovo and that she would provide proper time for the Local Government Bill. That would have come surprisingly—but extremely well—had she done it. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead did what she should have done, but it is a great pity that she did not do it. Perhaps she would like to do it now—or can a leopard not change its spots?

Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. Friend is correct. Like the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, I am concerned that we may go home tonight in a fractious state. However, he is wrong to try to put the blame for that on the Opposition. Had he been here for the debate, he would have found that the House was in a good mood. There was nothing fractious about it until the Government Front Benchers caused all the trouble. If the right hon. Gentleman goes home unhappy tonight, he knows who to blame. It is not us—it is the Government Front Benchers.

Mr. Hayes: Is not it the case that when the 10 o'clock motion was moved, most Members would have anticipated that the House would have continued to debate the amendments for perhaps an hour or two—perhaps until 12.30 am? One might have expected the Government to close down the debate at that time. By then, several further speeches would have been made and more matters aired. Frankly, the Government would have had a considerably easier time persuading Members on both sides of the House that their case was justified.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend asks what I expected when I came here. I have a confession to make—I had begun to believe some of the rhetoric of Labour Front Benchers. I was becoming brainwashed into believing that they were a confident, self-assured team who knew how to run the country. I have discovered that, far from that, they are a bunch of wimps who, even with a huge majority, cannot cope with opposition. They do not have the slightest intention of allowing anyone to have a say on anything with which they disagree. After only five hours of debate—during which time most Labour Back Benchers could not even be bothered to come here—they have run out of arguments and patience, and they have no intention of listening further.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is not it the case that the Government do not wish to discuss capping in detail on the Floor of the House? Is my hon. Friend aware that the present Government imposed the smallest-ever cap on a local authority, despite saying at the general election that they would not cap at all? Last year, they put a cap on Derbyshire—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a little wide of the matter before the House.

Mr. Wilshire: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making a point that the Labour party is trying to stop us


making by guillotining the debate. Not only has the debate been stopped after only five hours, it has been stopped after only two groups of amendments. That is all the Government can cope with. During the debates on the two groups, no Labour Back Bencher could be bothered to utter a word against our arguments. Opposition is something with which the Government cannot cope.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend has said that no Labour Back Benchers have contributed because they had no ideas to suggest to the debate. Was that the case, or was it that the Whips prevented them from doing so—thus demonstrating the inability of those on the Government Front Bench and the Whips to allow democracy in this House? [Interruption.]

Mr. Wilshire: Sadly, I do not have psychic powers, so I have no notion of what the Whips have been doing. However, having learned a bit about them in my first 11 years here, I would not be in the least surprised if my hon. Friend were correct. [Interruption.]

Mr. Gummer: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Minister for Local Government and Housing is very anxious to enter the debate? Has he noticed that she has hardly been able to contain herself during any speech from the Opposition? Will he point out to her that if we did not have the guillotine, she would have plenty of time to share with the House her obvious indignation?

Mr. Wilshire: Again, my right hon. Friend makes a fair point. Had he been here during our earlier debate, he would have noticed that, far from wanting to join in, the moment that things got difficult, the right hon. Lady got up and fled, probably to seek advice from spin doctors.

Mr. Hogg: If we face a guillotine motion tomorrow, is not the overwhelming probability that we will not have proper discussion of major parts of the Bill? Does my hon. Friend agree that, in those circumstances, it is important that the other place should debate the Bill very extensively, so that it is properly discussed in one House at least?

Mr. Wilshire: That is absolutely right. I am sure that we can send a few copies of Hansard to the other place to make exactly that point.

Mr. Jenkin: One reason why Ministers fled may be that their names appeared on early-day motions condemning capping in the previous Parliament. Those involved include the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Wales. They said one thing in opposition and now they do another.

Mr. Wilshire: Exactly so.
The Government cannot cope with more than five hours of debate. [Interruption.] Does the Minister for Local Government and Housing want me to give way?

Ms Armstrong: indicated dissent.

Mr. Denis MacShane: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the fact that, for the first time

this year, there are more than a dozen Conservative Members present in the Chamber. Yesterday, there were 12 here for the education statement. The average for Treasury, Trade and Industry and Education and Employment questions is fewer than 20. Here we have the fatuous fighting—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look around him, he will discover that there are more Conservative than Labour Members present. All his wimps have gone away again.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are trying to curtail the debate because the Minister for Local Government and Housing has been completely unable to answer Conservative Members' criticisms of her party?

Mr. Wilshire: Perhaps, having rushed out to seek help, the right hon. Lady could not find Alastair Campbell, so she came back with a guillotine.
After only five hours of debate and two groups of amendments and new clauses—a mere half an hour after moving the business motion to extend the debate—the Government decided that they had had enough, despite the fact that the business statement made it clear that we were to consider the Bill today. The Government gave ample notice of the debate and invited both Government and Opposition Members to consider the Bill and table amendments. It is a pity that only Opposition Members took up the invitation.
We could have had a constructive debate. The Government decided to move a business motion, for some tactical reason that is beyond me, but not because they genuinely wanted debate on what they said we would discuss today.

Mr. Hayes: The Adjournment motion was moved arbitrarily. The matters to be discussed later were at least as important as those that have been discussed, and arguably more so. The decision was based on no logic, common sense or sense of decency.

Mr. Wilshire: I agree that decency and logic are not hallmarks of the Government. They have made it clear that they do not want debate or amendments. They want to trample on democracy and deny us the chance to question what they have chosen to do.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend reinforces all that I feel about tonight's debate. Do not the people in the country feel that we have an elective dictatorship that does not wish to hear debate on the important issues before us?

Mr. Wilshire: I agree wholeheartedly.
May I put a point directly to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which has been mentioned by others? I am not clear about what has happened tonight. The Government moved that we should cease further consideration of the Local Government Bill. That motion can be debated, it is being debated, and it will be voted on. However, the Leader of


the House made what amounted to a statement. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, explained to us that she had spoken in our debate.
No doubt you will put me right if I am wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I understand that there is a motion before us and that we are debating it. The Leader of the House has spoken in that debate. I am not an expert on Standing Orders—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] Let us see whether I have a fair point or not. As I have learned during my 12 years in the House, business can be changed after it has been announced if a formal business statement is given to the House after the Government have given notice of that statement to the Speaker.
I do not understand whether we are debating a motion or a business statement. I do not believe that we can have both at the same time. When we come to vote on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you guide us as to whether there must follow a formal business statement on which we may ask questions before tomorrow's business can be changed?

Mr. Hogg: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The Leader of the House must make a formal business statement tomorrow, and we may look forward to asking her questions. At present, we are debating the motion, and very much enjoying it.

Mr. Wilshire: I should far rather have a ruling from the Chair, no matter how much I respect and like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Is it permissible for the Leader of the House to leap to her feet tomorrow afternoon to say that we will change the business two minutes later? Would not it be sensible to make a business statement now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me make it clear that we are debating the question that further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned. All speeches so far have been on that question.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we take it from that clear ruling that the business of the House, printed overnight, cannot include what the Leader of the House purported to say at the beginning of her speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Government have total control of the Order Paper.

Mr. Gummer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If it is the custom of the House that changes to the business of the House should be presented formally, do you agree that it would be a change in that custom if we did not have an opportunity to know what that change was and to ask at least limited questions of the Leader of the House of Commons?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps it would be helpful if the Leader of the House responded.

Mrs. Beckett: I am happy to help, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am slightly surprised that Opposition Members did not choose to ask questions when I made my earlier remarks.

The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) asked whether my action went outside the custom of the House. It did not.

Mr. Jenkin: It did.

Mrs. Beckett: That is not true. I well recall sitting in my office when I was shadow Leader of the House and seeing the then Leader of the House making a business statement on television without prior announcement.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall deal with that point. The Leader of the House could not have expected hon. Members to treat her remarks as a statement as she was simply contributing to the debate on the motion.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House has now risen. I think that hon. Members will wish to treat what she has said as a statement that gives us the opportunity, before we resume our debate, to ask her some questions. Will you confirm that what she has said by way of an intervention is indeed a statement that gives rise to the process of questioning that statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not correct. The Leader of the House was simply contributing to the debate.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You clearly gave a ruling that the Leader of the House's first remarks were part of the debate on whether the House should now adjourn. The Leader of the House, since then, has purported to say that she has made a business statement. Would it be possible, in the kindest way, to advise her that her remarks cannot have been a business statement as you had already ruled that her remarks were a contribution to the debate on the motion for adjournment. No one would want to accuse the Leader of the House of intentionally trying to challenge a ruling by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but until she clarifies the issue, that is the way it will read.

Sir George Young: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for the Leader of the House to confirm that once this debate is out of the way she plans to make a business statement in the normal way?

Mrs. Beckett: Not only is that my intention, but I have been willing to make it plain at any time this past hour. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We can clear this point up. Is the Leader of the House planning to make a statement at the conclusion of this debate?

Mrs. Beckett: At your convenience, and at the House's convenience, I shall make a statement when this debate is concluded. I accept, of course, your ruling, as I have accepted it from the beginning. I object strongly to the imputation by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), whatever his seat is. You properly ruled that I made a contribution to the debate and I have no


quarrel with that. I also have no objection to being questioned on the business statement: indeed, I look forward to it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The matter is entirely clear and we must now resume the debate.

Mr. Wilshire: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Things get better and better or worse and worse, depending on one's point of view. A few moments ago, we witnessed a demonstration from a bunch of wimps who are not prepared to debate anything and are not prepared to listen. We have now had a demonstration from a bunch of wimps who do not understand how to run the House of Commons, although they claim to be in charge of it.

Mr. Gummer: Would my hon. Friend comment on the fact that for several moments while he was asking the Leader of the House whether she was going to make a statement, she shook her head, giving a clear indication that she would not. She now says to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that she never had any intention of not making that statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That matter has been clarified and we must move on to the question before us.

Mr. Wilshire: I imagine that it may occur to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as we have not had a business statement, and the business has not yet changed, you might be tempted to ask how we can debate a change of business that has not taken place. Everything that has been said on the issue will need to be repeated after we have heard the business statement.

Mr. Hogg: One of the matters of concern to many hon. Members is that the Leader of the House proposes to make a business statement that clearly has not been discussed through the usual channels. Is not she abusing the courtesy and practice of the House and is not that a matter of grave concern to my hon. Friend?

Mr. Wilshire: It has been demonstrated that Government Front Benchers do not understand the conventions and courtesies of the House, so how can we expect anything different? The only other thing that we can now say is that perhaps the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges needs to investigate another leak. Before the business statement has been made, we know what will be in it. That is yet another leak from the Labour party.
I shall return to the subject of the Government's so far botched attempt to stop debate on the Bill. Before we got into this situation, we were discussing new clause 5. Our argument was that we wanted to return power to the people because the Bill would do the opposite. [Interruption.] We made no claim to that phrase; we borrowed it from the Labour party. Having had a debate about returning power to the people in local government, we are now having a debate about a Government who are prepared to deny power to Parliament. When the Government make their business statement shortly, they will guillotine a Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are not deciding what the Government or the Leader

of the House are going to do; there is a motion before the House. We can worry about what the statement contains later on.

Mr. Wilshire: I accept that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was responding to the contribution to the debate made by the Leader of the House. However, I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The refusal to listen that we saw earlier and are seeing now reflects the use of the draconian powers that refuse to allow Parliament to sit late into the night. Those draconian powers against this Parliament, like the draconian powers against local government, show the Government in their true light; that is not a pretty sight.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We are debating the progress of the Bill on Report; the Question is whether the House should adjourn and terminate debate tonight on this important Bill, having debated only two groups out of 12 groups of amendments and new clauses. According to the Leader of the House, many of the amendments that remain to be debated are likely to be subject to a guillotine, namely a timetabled debate.
I speak tonight because I served in local government and am proud of the role that local government plays in our democracy. Will the right hon. Lady guarantee to the House that she will allocate adequate time under the timetable motion for debate on the remaining 10 groups of amendments and new clauses, including the third group on the selection list? That group relates to capping—a most important matter, especially to those, like me, who served in local government. I am proud that one of the small number of achievements that I have notched up in my political career was when I won a Labour seat—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Until now, the hon. Gentleman has been perfectly in order, but he must not tell us about his political career. That is not the subject of the debate, interesting though it may be.

Mr. Winterton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have the feeling that the House wants to hear about it.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Deputy Speaker does not want to hear about it and that is what is important.

Mr. Winterton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought that you were seeking to represent the best interests of the whole House. At no stage would I ever seek to overrule a decision of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, but I am trying to make the point that debate on the remaining 10 groups of amendments and new clauses could well be limited and that that might have an impact on the effectiveness of local government and on the democracy which is so important to local government.

Mr. Gummer: rose—

Mr. Winterton: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend in a moment.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is someone for whom I have the highest regard; for several years, I served under his chairmanship of the Select


Committee on Social Security. He raised an issue about Kosovo and the fact that British service men and women—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] I am making the rulings and Kosovo is not a matter—[Interruption.] I make the rulings when I am in the Chair, and I cannot decide on what went on before I took the Chair. I am ruling that the matter of Kosovo is out of order.

Mr. Winterton: rose—

Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Winterton: I shall in a moment, but I hope that when the Deputy Speaker has received the advice of the Clerk of the House, he might—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better. I am acting on my own advice and I say to the hon. Gentleman that he should make no mention of Kosovo—it has nothing to do with the motion before us. The hon. Gentleman knows the procedures of this House as well as I do. Carry on.

Mr. Winterton: Let me say to the Deputy Speaker that I have been in for the whole of the debate, and the fact is that a Labour Member stood up and made a major part of his speech in respect of that matter—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes his seat.

Mr. Winterton: I will accept what the Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Winterton, you must accept my ruling and speak to the motion before us.

Mr. Winterton: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have already said that I am prepared to accept the ruling that you have made, however it will be interpreted. I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer).

Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to comment on an ugly rumour that has spun around the House that when debate on this motion has ended and the next motion is moved, the Government intend to limit speakers on the Government Benches to those—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bradley: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 140.

Division No.127
[11.47 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Darvill, Keith


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Allen, Graham
Davidson, Ian


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dawson, Hilton


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Dean, Mrs Janet


Atkins, Charlotte
Denham, John


Austin, John
Dismore, Andrew


Banks, Tony
Dobbin, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Battle, John
Donohoe, Brian H


Bayley, Hugh
Doran, Frank


Beard, Nigel
Dowd, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Drew, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Edwards, Huw


Bennett, Andrew F
Efford, Clive


Benton, Joe
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Best, Harold
Ennis, Jeff


Blackman, Liz
Etherington, Bill


Blears, Ms Hazel
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blizzard, Bob
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Borrow, David
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Follett, Barbara


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Browne. Desmond
Foulkes, George


Buck, Ms Karen
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Galloway, George


Burgon, Colin
Gardiner, Barry


Butler, Mrs Christine
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Caborn, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyfh V)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Godsiff, Roger


Cann, Jamie
Goggins, Paul


Caplin, Ivor
Golding, Mrs Llin


Casale, Roger
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chaytor, David
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Healey, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clelland, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clwyd, Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coleman, lain
Hill, Keith


Colman, Tony
Hinchiiffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoey, Kate


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Hope, Phil


Cousins, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cranston, Ross
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Crausby, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, John (Homchurch)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hurst, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Hutton, John


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Iddon, Dr Brian






Illsley, Eric
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mudie, George


Jamieson, David
Mullin, Chris


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Naysmith, Dr Doug


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Norris, Dan


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Ms Jenny
Olner, Bill


(Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pearson, Ian


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pendry, Tom


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pickthall, Colin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pike, Peter L


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pond, Chris


Kemp, Fraser
Pope, Greg


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pound, Stephen


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kidney, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quinn, Lawrie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Radice, Giles


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rammell, Bill


Laxton, Bob
Rapson, Syd


Lepper, David
Raynsford, Nick


Leslie, Christopher
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Levitt, Tom
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roy, Frank


Lock, David
Ruane, Chris


Love, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McAllion, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McAvoy, Thomas
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCabe, Steve
Savidge, Malcolm


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Sawford, Phil


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonnell, John
Singh, Marsha


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine


McNamara, Kevin
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McWalter, Tony
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mallaber, Judy
Steinberg, Gerry


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Stevenson, George


Marek, Dr John
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stott, Roger


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Maxton, John
Stringer, Graham


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Meale, Alan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Merron, Gillian
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
(Dewsbury)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Miller, Andrew
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mitchell, Austin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Timms, Stephen


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Tipping, Paddy


Morley, Elliot
Todd, Mark





Touhig, Don
Williams. Rt Hon Alan


Trickett, Jon
(Swansea W)


Truswell, Paul
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)
Wills, Michael


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Winnick, David


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Vaz, Keith
Woolas, Phil


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wareing, Robert N
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Watts, David



White, Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. Clive Betts 




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Allan, Richard
Hammond, Philip


Amess, David
Harvey, Nick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hayes, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heald, Oliver


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Baker, Norman
Horam, John


Ballard, Jackie
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bercow, John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Blunt, Crispin
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Body, Sir Richard
Jenkin, Bernard


Boswell, Tim
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)



Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Key, Robert


Brazier, Julian
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lansley, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Leigh, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Letwin, Oliver


Burnett, John
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Burns, Simon
Lidington, David


Burstow, Paul
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Butterfill, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies 
Loughton, Tim


(NE Fife)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



McLoughlin, Patrick


Chidgey, David
Malins, Humfrey


Chope, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Clappison, James
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
May, Mrs Theresa


Collins, Tim
Moore, Michael


Cran, James
Moss, Malcolm


Curry, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Oaten, Mark


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Öpik, Lembit


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice& Howden)
Ottaway, Richard



Page, Richard


Day, Stephen
Paice, James


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Prior, David


Duncan, Alan
Randall, John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
Rendel, David


Fabricant, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Fallon, Michael
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Flight, Howard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Ruffley, David


Fraser, Christopher
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Garnier, Edward
St Aubyn, Nick


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Sanders, Adrian


Gibb, Nick
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gill. Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spring, Richard


Gray, James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Green, Damian
Steen, Anthony


Greenway, John
Streeter, Gary


Grieve, Dominic
Stunell, Andrew


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter






Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Willis, Phil


Trend, Michael
Wilshire, David


Tyne, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Walter, Robert
Woodward, Shaun


Wardle, Charles
Yeo, Tim


Waterson, Nigel
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Webb, Steve



Wells, Bowen
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Whittingdale, John
Sir David Madel

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 314,Noes 132.

Division No.128]
[12.3 am


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Coaker, Vernon


Ainsworth, Robert (CoV'try NE)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coleman, lain


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Colman, Tony


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Connarty, Michael


Atkins, Charlotte
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Austin, John
Corbett, Robin


Banks, Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Corston, Ms Jean


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Cranston, Ross


Beard, Nigel
Crausby, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, John (Homchurch)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cunningham, Jim (CoV'try S)


Bennett, Andrew F
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Benton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Best, Harold
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blackman, Liz
Darvill, Keith


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blizzard, Bob
Davidson, Ian


Borrow, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradshaw, Ben
Denham, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dobbin, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Donohoe, Brian H


Burden, Richard
Doran, Frank


Burgon, Colin
Dowd, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Drew, David


Cabom, Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Ellman. Mrs Louise


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ennis, Jeff


Cann, Jamie
Etherington, Bill


Caplin, Ivor
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Casale, Roger
Fisher, Mark


Caton, Martin
Fitzsimons, Loma


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flint, Caroline


Chaytor, David
Flynn, Paul


Clapham, Michael
Follett, Barbara


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)



Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Foulkes, George


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Galloway, George


Clelland, David
Gardiner, Barry


Clwyd, Ann
George, Bruce (Walsall S)





Gerrard, Neil
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lock, David


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Love, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
McAllion, John


Godsiff, Roger
McAvoy, Thomas


Goggins, Paul
McCabe, Steve


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McDonnell, John


Grogan, John
McFall, John


Hain, Peter
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McNamara, Kevin


Hanson, David
MacShane, Denis


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mactaggart, Fiona


Healey, John
McWalter, Tony


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McWilliam, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hepburn, Stephen
Mallaber, Judy


Heppell, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hesford, Stephen
Marek, Dr John


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hill, Keith
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Martlew, Eric


Hoey, Kate
Maxton, John


Home Robertson, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hoon, Geoffrey
Meale, Alan


Hope, Phil
Merron, Gillian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Miller, Andrew


Howells, Dr Kim
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hutton, John
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Morley, Elliot


Illsley, Eric
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mountford, Kali


Jackson. Helen (Hillsborough)
Mudie, George


Jamieson, David
Mullin, Chris


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Naysmith, Dr Doug



Norris, Dan


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Helen (Warnington N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)
Pearson, Ian


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pendry, Tom


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pickthall, Colin


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pike, Peter L


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Plaskitt, James


Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)
Pond, Chris


Kemp, Fraser
Pope, Greg


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pound, Stephen


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kidney, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kiffoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quinn, Lawrie


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Radice, Giles


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rammell, Bill


Laxton, Bob
Rapson, Syd


Lepper, David
Raynsford, Nick


Leslie, Christopher
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Levitt, Tom
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee KO


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted






Roy, Frank
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Ruane, Chris
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ruddock, Joan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Timms, Stephen


Savidge, Malcolm
Tipping, Paddy


Sawford, Phil
Todd, Mark


Sedgemore, Brian
Touhig, Don


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Trickett, Jon


Singh, Marsha
Truswell, Paul


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Vaz, Keith



Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Watts, David


Soley, Clive
White, Brian


Squire, Ms Rachel
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wicks, Malcolm


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stevenson, George



Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wills, Michael


Stinchcombe, Paul
Winnick, David


Stott, Roger
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Woolas, Phil


Stringer, Graham
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Clive Betts


Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Allan, Richard
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Amess, David



Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Atkinson, David (Bour'Mth E)



Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Norman
Clappison, James


Ballard, Jackie
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bercow, John
Collins, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Gran, James


Boswell, Tim
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Brazier, Julian



Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Day, Stephen


Browning, Mrs Angela
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Duncan, Alan


Burnett, John
Duncan Smith, lain


Burns, Simon
Faber, David


Burstow, Paul
Fabricant, Michael





Fallon, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Page, Richard


Foster, Don (Bath)
Paice, James


Fraser, Christopher
Prior, David


Garnier, Edward
Randall, John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gibb, Nick
Rendel, David


Gill, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gray, James 
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Green, Damian
Ruffley, David


Greenway, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Grieve, Dominic
St Aubyn, Nick


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Sanders, Adrian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie 
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hammond, Philip
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hayes, John 
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heald, Oliver
Spring, Richard


 Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David 
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Steen, Anthony


Horam, John
Streeter, Gary


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Stunell, Andrew


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jenkin, Bernard Robert
Tredinnick, David


Key,Robert,
Trend, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Tyrie, Andrew


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Viggers, Peter


Lansley, Andrew
Wallace, James


Leigh, Edward
Walter, Robert


Letwin, Oliver
Waterson, Nigel


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Webb, Steve


Lidington, David
Wells, Bowen


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Whittingdale, John


Loughton, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Willetts, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Willis, Phil


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wilshire, David


Malins, Humfrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Mates, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Woodward, Shaun


May, Mrs Theresa
Yeo, Tim


Moore, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Moss, Malcolm



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Oaten, Mark
Mrs.Eleanot Laing and


Öpik, Lembit
Sir David Madel

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered this day.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement.
The business for tomorrow will be a timetable motion on the Local Government Bill, followed by consideration of proceedings on the Bill. The business previously announced will be taken at a later date.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. Lady for making a proper business statement, on which the House can ask questions.
If the House is no longer to address the Access to Justice Bill tomorrow, what more important issue could the House address than the crisis in Kosovo? As for local government, we believe that we should have continued to discuss the Local Government Bill on Report tonight. We believe that the Prime Minister was right to table a motion saying that
at this day's sitting, the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.
We cannot understand why Labour Members have abandoned the motion that was tabled by their Prime Minister, which they supported at 10 o'clock.
It is not unusual for consideration to continue after 10 o'clock, particularly if that is the best way in which to make progress on important issues concerning local government. Is the right hon. Lady aware that, under the curtailed arrangements that she has just announced, the House will have an inadequate opportunity to discuss rate capping, policing, compulsory competitive tendering and other issues concerning the future of local government?
We were prepared to discuss those issues—which are vital to our constituents—through the night. The Government had no response to the cogent arguments of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Government have panicked by changing the business. They have displayed arrogance—an arrogance that is becoming the hallmark of the Administration.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman does himself and his colleagues a great injustice when he says that they cannot understand why the Government have taken the step of adjourning consideration of the Local Government Bill. He is entirely right. That is not unusual. The House does debate matters on occasion beyond 10 o'clock when it is for the convenience of the House to dispose of important business, but I am sure that he will have noticed that we were not disposing of the business at all.
The Bill went through Committee in good order and it came out of Committee in good order. It then came before the House. At no point did the Opposition suggest to the Government that the time proposed for the debate was insufficient. We had reached 10 pm, and we had debated two of the 12 groups of amendments that had been tabled. I think that it was very clear what was happening. Moreover, at no point did the Opposition indicate what further time they thought would be required, or when they thought that it might be possible to finish the debate.
Great concern has been expressed about local government matters. It may be known at least to Opposition local government spokesmen that early tomorrow morning—and I mean early—an important meeting is scheduled to take place between senior local government figures and my colleagues who deal with such matters. That meeting would have been prevented had the House continued to debate the Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman says that some people do not understand the purpose of the statement, he does himself an injustice.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Before I call another Member, let me say that the Leader of the House must be asked questions on her statement.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I hope that Ministers will have a good night's sleep, so that they can have a good meeting with representatives of local government. I trust that the Leader of the House will appreciate that the gentlemen and ladies whom they will meet tomorrow will want to know what happened to the Local Government Bill tonight.
Why were we not given an opportunity to debate the council tax benefit subsidy clawback that the Government are imposing? Why were we not given an opportunity to debate capping, and the Government's decision to impose it again? Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that we have spent an hour and a half debating not debating anything, and that we have consequently lost an opportunity to make further progress on the Bill? Will she also acknowledge that the lion's share of time has been taken by Conservative Members who have filled air time, but have not provided any substance? Does she accept that, as a result, we have lost the opportunity to debate properly local government issues that the Conservative party never cared about, and did a very bad job of dealing with in government?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Burstow: My final question is this. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House would guarantee adequate time tomorrow for us to debate the final groups of amendments properly, so that we can test the Government on the issues as the official Opposition signally failed to do today.

Mrs. Beckett: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government will find time for those debates, however that time is used. He has made some very fair points about the way in which the time has been used today. That was not our doing, however; it was the doing of the official Opposition. We cannot predict or control the way in which the time that will be provided is used tomorrow, although the Government wish and intend the Bill to be properly debated, and we have done nothing to prevent that.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Given that a day of Government business will be lost tomorrow, and given that the Tories are very concerned about losing that day, may I suggest a solution to the problem that my right hon. Friend could consider before the Easter break? There are


two extra days for that holiday, the Thursday before Easter and the Monday after the holiday is over. My right hon. Friend should inform—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The statement was about tomorrow's business, and questions should relate to that.

Mrs. Beckett: I shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind. I am sure that Conservative Members will be anxious to attend.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: As proceedings on the Access to Justice Bill are now to be delayed, will the Leader of the House ask her noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to take the opportunity of that delay to explain more clearly why access to justice for poor people who have suffered personal injuries is being reduced?

Mrs. Beckett: Again, I shall bear in mind the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. He will have the opportunity to make those points when the Access to Justice Bill is considered by the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As there have been new developments since the Prime Minister's statement on Yugoslavia, may I ask the Leader of the House—not least in light of the fact that Mr. Primakov has cancelled his visit to Washington—what the Government's thinking is on a statement or a debate on Yugoslavia tomorrow?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will be aware that a debate on defence in the world is scheduled for Thursday. I have little doubt that those matters will be aired then.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I reinforce the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on tomorrow's business? As the business of the House is now being arranged, does the Leader of the House not agree that, tomorrow, we really should be debating Kosovo? Many of us have very grave reservations about the policy that the Government currently are pursuing, and we should like to have an opportunity to probe the thinking and the strategy of the Government and the NATO alliance. Tomorrow is an opportunity, as the business is being arranged. Why does she not take it?

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman had an opportunity this afternoon to take part in the questioning on those matters. I understand that he was not here, just as he was not here for any of today's debates—although he has been very vocal since 10 o'clock.

Mr. Derek Foster: May I support the claims of both my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and of the Opposition that we should have a debate on Kosovo? I think that there is a useful compromise. The Leader of the House has quite sensibly said that, on Thursday, there will be a related debate on defence. Can we not have that debate rescheduled as a debate on Kosovo, rather than as a tour d'horizon of all the issues of defence in the world? Let us

have a debate on Kosovo alone, in view of the developments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has drawn attention.

Mrs. Beckett: I hear what my right hon. Friend says and shall bear his remarks in mind. However, it seems that the debate that it is intended we shall have on Thursday will provide an opportunity for those issues to be raised—perhaps with rather more knowledge and understanding, as the House will have had time to assimilate events that may be taking place tonight or tomorrow. I feel assured that it will be a better debate for that.

Mr. David Davis: I was here for this afternoon's statement by the Prime Minister, and heard the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), with whom I do not always agree, describe the statement as the most serious statement that he had heard in all his time in the House—for several decades. [HON. MEMBERS: "Since Suez."] The right hon. Gentleman said since Suez; I beg his pardon. May I add my support to other hon. Members who have spoken, and ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the business for tomorrow and to treat the most important business before the United Kingdom—namely, Kosovo—in a debate tomorrow?

Mrs. Beckett: During the hour and a half of debate that we have just had on whether the House should adjourn this evening, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) very fairly questioned whether this was a time when the House should be engaging in such partisan trivia, but his comment was ignored. I have to weigh the observations made by right hon. and hon. Members in this exchange against that observation.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The debate on Thursday, entitled "Defence in the World", is scheduled to take place on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. In the light of what has been said, both today and in the exchanges in the past few moments, would it not be right for the Government to table a substantive motion on Thursday, and to allow the House to debate specifically the issue of Kosovo on a motion that expresses the Government's position?

Mrs. Beckett: I do take heed of, and shall certainly draw to the attention of my right. hon. and hon. Friends in Government, some of the issues that have been raised on the matter. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that that is not the issue that we are discussing now.

Mr. Tom King: May I tell the right hon. Lady that, in view of the gravity of the situation that we face—none of us knows what the events may be tonight or early tomorrow—it is very important that the armed forces, whom we ask to represent us, should know, and are entitled to know, that they have the support of the House of Commons? Drawing on my previous experience, I know—as she will know—that, on a number of occasions, the House voted to show its support for our armed forces who were engaged in risking their lives. If we get involved in the new development, it will not be sufficient simply to have a debate on the Adjournment. It


will be necessary, and I believe proper, for the House to show that it is prepared to support our armed forces—who are risking their lives in a very dangerous venture, for reasons that I think that the House fully supports.

Mrs. Beckett: I simply repeat what I have already said to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)—those points will be taken on board and will be given full and careful consideration. There can be no question but that the whole House fully supports our armed forces. However, the right hon. Gentleman could have made his points an hour and a half ago if his hon. Friends had not chosen to waste the time of the House.

Mr. John Gummer: Does the right hon. Lady accept that, whatever she may say—and no doubt she will—about what has gone on earlier this evening, people outside the House expect that if we are going to change our order of business we should debate the issue that they regard as the most urgent. If we cannot do that tomorrow, it is important that we debate the issue on Thursday in a form that will show people outside the House that we feel it to be relevant. The right hon. Lady and I do not agree. She does not feel that the Government are bypassing the House of Commons, but many people do. She has an opportunity to show people that the Government believe that the House of Commons should discuss the issues that really matter, not late at night or at some other time, but in the full glare of publicity. I hope that she agrees that tomorrow would be the right day.

Mrs. Beckett: Without having attended any of the debate today, the right hon. Gentleman has spent a considerable amount of the past hour and a half to two hours wasting the time of the House and ignoring the important points that were made about Kosovo. His point was serious and well made, but he is not the man to make it.

Mr. Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the tradition of the House that the Leader of the House speaks not as a party politician, but on behalf of the whole House? Has she not just given us an example of her inability to live up to the standards of her office?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I should like to press my right hon. Friend on tomorrow's business and reinforce what has been said by hon. Members on both sides about a debate on Kosovo. I remind my right hon. Friend that before the Gulf war broke out, the House was recalled during the summer recess for a two-day debate and a vote on the issue. We are embarking on a leap in the dark. The people of this country should hear what their representatives have to say, for and against NATO's proposed action.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is addressing the form in which the House might register a view. As I have said to other hon. Members who have properly raised the matter, the Government will give consideration to that issue. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand and accept that the House may have a better

informed debate, which will better reflect what is bound to be an evolving situation, on Thursday rather than tomorrow.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House has announced a change of business. May I support the views that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides that, bearing in mind what is going to happen in the name of the people of the United Kingdom, we should have the earliest opportunity to debate the situation in Kosovo and the involvement of United Kingdom service men and women in what may happen in that part of the world? As Leader of the House, I hope that she is prepared to represent the best interests of the House and assure us that she will use her influence to give us such an opportunity. Will she also allow adequate time for full debate on all the groups of amendments on the Local Government Bill that have not yet been considered, if democracy and local government mean anything to the Government?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand. I have repeatedly made the point that it is not a matter of us seeking to deny time to debate issues that are important to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House; it is a matter of when that debate might best be held. The Government will provide as much time as the Opposition understood was provided—and had not queried—for debate on the Local Government Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, I cannot undertake to say how that time will be used.

Mr. Eric Forth: How much time will the Leader of the House provide for the 10 remaining groups of amendments to the Local Government Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: The intention is to provide the five hours which have been lost today.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: The Leader of the House will have heard tonight views expressed from both sides of the House about the importance of events in former Yugoslavia. As Leader of the House, she has a duty to the House. Will she undertake to convey to the Prime Minister the profound feelings expressed across the Floor of the House about the gravity of the situation and impress on him the need to change the business for Thursday, if not that for tomorrow, so that the House might have the opportunity that my right hon. and hon. Friends have requested? Will she also respond to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, who said, quite reasonably, that the 10 o'clock motion in the name of the Prime Minister was moved and supported by the Government and that only 40 minutes later—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is testing my patience. His question was far too long.

Mrs. Beckett: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I have said already. Of course the Government take these matters seriously, treat them with great respect and will do so consistently.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the House made a very short speech. I shall take one more question from a Back Bencher and then I shall allow the Opposition Front Bench spokesman in.

Sir Alastair Goodlad: May I add my voice to those who have said that in light of today's


development it would be of great advantage to follow the precedent, when we have entered into armed conflict, of having a debate, preferably tomorrow, but certainly on Thursday, on a substantive motion on the subject?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I have taken on board the points that have been made. It is important to make clear that even if the debate that is scheduled for Thursday remains unchanged, it will facilitate full discussion of the issues that right hon. and hon. Members wish to raise. It is not a matter of it being a different subject which would not permit those matters to be raised—[Interruption.] There is no point in hon. Members making those noises. I have said—and I mean—that I have taken on board the points that have been made and I will convey them to the proper quarters.

Sir George Young: Further to the serious exchanges that we have just had, will the Leader of the House reconsider the business for the next two days? Will she have discussions through the usual channels and then consider making a further business statement tomorrow?

Mrs. Beckett: I have already undertaken to consider what is scheduled to happen on Thursday, but none of us would be in the position that we are in now, let alone at this time, had there been the possibility of discussions to resolve these matters through the usual channels. [Interruption.] It is not a matter of being clever; it is simply a statement of fact. Of course I am always prepared to take on board what the House is saying and

to discuss and consider these matters through the usual channels. That remains the position and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will do that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you advise the House? We have just heard that apparently there will be just five hours to debate 10 groups of amendments that the Speaker has grouped together. Is there any indication of how much time will he allocated to each amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That will be the subject of tomorrow's debate, when the hon. Gentleman might be able to catch the eye of the Chair.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have heard that we are to debate the timetable motion. In advance of that, is it possible to hear from the Leader of the House whether the five hours that she proposes to allocate to the consideration of the 10 groups of amendments will include Divisions or not? If Divisions are not included, it allows fifteen minutes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to extend questions on the statement.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Several motions have been summarily removed from the Order Paper. Have you received any notification from the Government as to when they intend to put them to the House again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As a former Minister, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should know that that is at the Government's discretion and has nothing to do with the Chair.

Millennium Compliance (Defence)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. David Atkinson: There are now 284 days to go until the new millennium. Unfortunately, even as the champagne corks are popping at midnight on the eve of the new century, events will begin to unfold over which we will have little control, to which we can only respond as best we can and which no one can guarantee will be avoided.
I am, of course, referring to the effect of the so-called millennium bug on those computer systems upon which all of us today rely to sustain our standard of life but which, some experts predict, will cause chaos, confusion and even catastrophe that will be world wide: commencing in New Zealand—the first to enter the new century—and, like a tidal wave, moving at the speed of time westwards across the planet, wrecking whole societies in its wake.
I should emphasise that that is a domesday scenario suggested by some. Others predict that we will instead experience a slower breakdown of essential services and critical infrastructure as the computer services which deliver them come up against a date that they do not recognise—the year 2000.
I was the first to raise the issue in the House, as long ago as 7 December 1995, in a question to the then Prime Minister. Today, because of the ever-wider coverage given to the issue—and thanks to the Government's quarterly reports to Parliament—there is no excuse for any politician not to be aware of the issue and not to be ensuring that everything possible is being done to respond to it, both nationally and locally.
One of the most important aspects upon which we should be certain that our computer systems are millennium-safe concerns our national defence and security. In 1996, alarming reports began to appear in our national press. Sunday Business, on 17 November, warned that the UK
may be defenceless in the Year 2000.
Rachel Oldroyd reported:
Technology experts are warning that the country's entire defence infrastructure will fail at the end of the century unless immediate action is taken to rectify a serious flaw inherent in many of the Ministry of Defence's computer systems, space satellite communication systems, logistic systems and weaponry.
The systems will fail, according to experts employed by the Government, because many computer programmes and computer chips embedded within machinery including nuclear weapons are unable to recognise the Year 2000.

Mr. Brian White: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the UK systems are now millennium compliant. Will he comment on European systems and, in particular, the ex-Soviet fleet in the Arctic, which is not millennium compliant and may pose a danger to this country?

Mr. Atkinson: I was not going to comment on the issue, but no doubt the Minister will have heard the hon. Gentleman and may wish to reply if he has time.
The Daily Telegraph of 31 August 1996 reported that particular problems were predicted on 22 August 1999, when the global positioning satellite system used to direct cruise missiles to their targets, supertankers into harbours and aircraft to airports will reset its date to 6 January 1980 because of a year 2000-related fault.
In his letter to me of 1 December 1995, the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), had assured me that
appropriate measures are already in hand".
That was subsequently confirmed in a detailed reply by the then Defence Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). That early work by the previous Government in response to the problems posed to our national defence by the millennium bug was acknowledged in the letter that Lord Gilbert, a current Defence Minister, sent to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on 1 June 1997, which concluded:
I hope this gives you confidence that we are taking vigorous steps to ensure that UK defence systems are not at risk.
I applaud the present Government's continuation of the previous Government's work to address the threat posed to our defence by the millennium bug. I note that I am not alone in looking forward to learning from the Minister the latest position regarding the millennium preparedness of the critical computer systems of all three armed services, especially in view of last week's quarterly report from the Leader of the House suggesting that key Ministry of Defence agencies are not likely to be millennium compliant until late December.
I am sure that the Minister realises that it will not be enough to assure the House that the computer, information, satellite communication and logistics systems and weaponry concerned with the defence of this United Kingdom will be millennium ready, because we are in alliance with 19 other countries in NATO, and 10 in the Western European Union. Our computer systems are linked to and interdependent with theirs.
Just as Action 2000 is currently emphasising in its newspaper advertising campaign that
If a business you rely on isn't ready, you aren't ready",
the same logic applies to the computer links with our allies. It is essential for the maintenance of the entire defence of Europe that all the systems of all our allies continue to function without interruption. I seek an assurance on that from the Minister, but from the evidence that I will now share with the House, he will not be able to give it.
Two years ago, I proposed to the technological and aerospace committee of the Western European Union that we should investigate the alarming reports that this country, and therefore all member states, might be rendered defenceless by the bug. I had hoped that the WEU assembly might debate the outcome of that investigation in December 1997, but that debate did not take place until the most recent session, last December.
The committee agreed that its chairman, the hon. Member for Leicester, South should approach the Defence Ministers of the 10 WEU states to find out how they were responding to the millennium bug, so that we could take a considered view on whether the WEU as a whole was responding adequately to the threat. My report,


document 1622, records the responses that he received, together with those from the WEU council, the satellite centre and the assembly.
From those responses we were able to conclude that Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are fully aware of the problem and are taking the action necessary, as, it would seem, are the WEU council, the satellite centre and the assembly, although, as I pointed out in presenting my report to the assembly last December, it should be aware that we now know that any assurance Microsoft gave that its most recent systems will not be affected must now be disregarded. Even Windows 98 will not be compliant without action being taken and tested.
We could not conclude that the computer systems involved in the defence and security of Europe, as provided for under the Brussels treaty, would be millennium compliant, because the hon. Member for Leicester, South has received no replies from four member states—Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal—even after a second approach.
Moreover, as and when members of the assembly press their Governments in their own Parliaments, such as ours, on whether they can guarantee that the computer systems of the public services and infrastructures on which their armed services rely—including electricity supplies, rail or air traffic control systems—will be safe from the bug, they will not be given such an assurance.
In view of that, the assembly unanimously endorsed my recommendation—No. 6362—on the millennium bug and its consequences for European defence. In seeking an assurance that European defence would not be at risk, it urged the WEU council to report to the assembly on its response to the problem and on any contingency plans that had been drawn up.
Earlier this month, the council replied to that recommendation, but the reply is totally inadequate. It ignored our principal conclusion that, because four member states had ignored our request for information, we could not be assured that European defence would not be at risk. The council has not told us whether WEU is or will be millennium ready as a defence alliance. Nor has it said whether contingency plans have been or are being drawn up. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether the collective defence of WEU member states will be at risk at the end of the year.
Let me turn to the NATO alliance. When the technological and aerospace committee visited the United States of America in 1997, it was briefed on the Department of Defense's Year 2000 management plan, dated April 1997. In his introduction, the then Under-Secretary of State, Emmett Paige, emphasised that that Department relies heavily on computers in the deployment of weapons. When the computer fails, the weapons systems fail.
However, in the British-American security information council's report, "The Bug in the Bomb: the impact of the Year 2000 problem on nuclear weapons", which was published last November, it appears that the Pentagon's efforts to meet the fast approaching deadline are "a mess", with what the report calls
severe and recurring problems across the spectrum".

The report says that initial research findings by a number of agencies and teams of experts inside and outside the USA's Department of Defense have resulted in no confidence that the Department's programme will meet the challenge. The Deputy Secretary of Defence, John Homre, is quoted as admitting that
everything is so interconnected, it's very hard to know with any precision that we've got it fixed".
This worrying situation appears to be confirmed in Connected, a supplement of The Daily Telegraph, which, on 31 December, contained an article headlined, "The bug bang". Simon Davies reported that at a meeting on 25 September a group of high level officials met at Mr. Homre's office to review the potential impact of the millennium bug. Admiral Richard Mies, the commander-in-chief of US Strategic Command—STRATCOM—bluntly told the meeting that the nuclear defence system was not millennium compliant. He warned that 11 crucial STRATCOM nuclear systems would not be fixed in time. He added that 12 new systems currently in development would also not be compliant.
In other words, says The Daily Telegraph, at least 23 control systems at the heart of the USA nuclear arsenal might fall victim to the millennium bug. If the computers fail to recognise the rollover, they might react in 100 different ways, from creating a false attack alert to blacking radar systems.
If what I have said is remotely accurate, it would appear that with only 284 days to go, we cannot conclude that the member states of the WEU and of NATO will not be rendered defenceless by the millennium bug. Nor can we guarantee that we will not be at risk from accidental nuclear attack, as the Federation of American Scientists has warned. As the report "The Bug in the Bomb" concludes:
the only prudent course may be to de-alert or even de-activate those nuclear missile systems where date-related malfunctioning in associated command, control and communications systems poses even a remote possibility of accidental launch.
We know that a similar risk of accidental launch of missiles exists from other countries with a nuclear capability, such as Libya, Syria, Iran, China, Russia and North Korea, because so much of their computer software has been pirated that they lack the source code to correct it, unless the Americans are prepared to share information to guard against a launch based on faulty data.
Nor can we rule out a calculated launch, as suggested in the Sunday Telegraph on 6 December, which quoted an American defence official as saying:
If Saddam Hussein wanted to launch an attack, 1 January 2000 would be the day to do it.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the current state of preparedness of UK defence, about the collective defence of western Europe in our alliance with the WEU and NATO, and about the risk of accidental launch of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons from unfriendly countries unable to cope with the millennium bug.
In particular, will the Minister respond to the key question posed in The Daily Telegraph in an article on 31 December, on which his Department declined to comment?
If Britain and the US are partners in an integrated nuclear defence system, then how will the possible failure of 23 critical American systems affect our own systems?


Will he support the endorsement given by the WEU assembly to resolution 1167, passed last September by the Council of Europe, calling for an internationally agreed standard of millennium conformity; and will he say how far that has progressed? An internationally agreed test day should be held as soon as possible to put right the problems that will, inevitably, be exposed. Finally, will the Minister tell the House of the proposed involvement of the British Army in providing back-up to the police from new year's eve to deal with any civil emergency arising from any breakdown of public services due to the millennium bug, as suggested in the memo by the Secretary of State for Scotland last November?

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on securing this debate on such a crucial issue. I am sure that he is as pleased as the rest of us that he was able to address the House at this time instead of somewhat later, as was threatened earlier in our proceedings. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's important work on raising awareness of the issue, which he has undertaken as Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and as rapporteur on the year 2000 computer date change problem—or, as it is otherwise known, the millennium bug. I thank him for his remarks about the Government's work on the problem.
The hon. Gentleman covered a lot of ground. I propose to try to cover the points he raised in connection with our response as a nation, and the responses of our allies, our friends and NATO. I shall also try to refer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) in relation to Russia. If I have the time, I shall also refer to the point made about support for civil authorities. The question of the minutiae of various manoeuvres in the WEU would be better raised in that forum rather than here, but if the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East wishes to write to me on specific points, I would be happy to try to deal with them.
The first question raised was about the preparedness of the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces. I wish to amplify the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in her statement last Tuesday on progress by the Government and key parts of the national infrastructure in tacking the millennium bug. She said that the Ministry of Defence was making good progress in dealing with the bug, but that it was a large and complex programme and there was no room for slippage. I agree with that point.
The Ministry of Defence year 2000 programme is, indeed, the largest and most complex in central Government, and accounts for about half of the total central Government expenditure of some £400 million. The programme receives the highest priority in the Ministry of Defence, with the exception only of meeting key operational commitments.
So far, many more than 30,000 systems employing computer-based technology have been assessed within the Ministry of Defence and its associated agencies. Work on many of them is already complete. For example, the Ministry of Defence centre and the armed forces have so far completed work on around 65 per cent. of all systems. It is expected that work on 95 per cent. of those systems determined to be critical to defence will be completed by

the autumn, with the remainder finished before the end of the year. I can say that for the three services, we are confident that by August this year, all Royal Navy ships and submarines will be year 2000 compliant, that all Army front-line systems will be compliant by September and that all Royal Air Force aircraft will be mission capable through the millennium by the end of May.
Year 2000 rectification work is time consuming and has to be carried out to the highest standards. Within the Ministry of Defence, our progress is reviewed monthly by Ministers, including myself, and senior staff, and is a standing item on the defence council agenda. We are certainly not complacent about progress and we have put in place an independent audit programme to provide additional assurance that the work is carried out correctly.
Even so, there may be unforeseen failures, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East pointed out. For that reason, we are developing contingency plans to cope with the unexpected, which might arise. In any year 2000 programme, individual systems must be made compliant, but the interconnections between systems must also be checked. During this year, our overall readiness will be validated in a number of exercises. These will show that the checks and rectification work have been successfully carried out, and that our contingency plans and fallbacks really do work. For example, we are well aware of our dependency on the communications infrastructure of NATO and other nations. I will describe our co-operation with those nations later. In our own programme, we are demonstrating our ability to maintain the command and control of our forces deployed overseas using our wholly owned, year 2000 compliant communications systems. Almost all the work will be complete by late summer this year.
I turn now to the work that is taking place with allied nations. The Ministry of Defence and the United States Department of Defense have been proactive in raising this issue in NATO and with our NATO allies. An international group on defence has been formed to address the impact that the millennium bug could have on allied and coalition operations. Currently, participants include the United States, the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands, France and Germany. NATO is also represented, providing liaison between the group, the work within NATO and other nations. The next meeting to review progress will be held in July.
The role of the group is to exchange information on the progress each country is making in dealing with the problem. The group deals with common issues, such as ensuring that electronic data exchanges between defence forces will not be affected, and co-ordinating operational planning and priorities over the millennium period. It also seeks to raise awareness in the defence forces of other nations with which we co-operate.
NATO has established a team, under the auspices of the NATO command and control and communications board, to deal with the millennium problem in NATO-owned systems and in those that cross NATO-national boundaries. The UK works closely with the NATO team to ensure that NATO-UK issues are promptly addressed. To address the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East and the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, a working group met in January, under the auspices of the


NATO-Russia permanent joint council, to exchange year 2000 programme information; that meeting was well attended by NATO nations.
We have made it clear that we are prepared to share our expertise—we think that we have a lot—and experience, and to contribute our resources to ensure safety and security in military and linked operations throughout the world, including the former Soviet Union—especially Russia. We want to give help where we can and in establishing links with those countries, we can be assured that systems in those countries are safe. The initiative is important and I hope that we shall make progress, although I realise that time is short.
In addition to playing a leading role in NATO and the wider international year 2000 defence group, the UK has also been to the fore in raising awareness and exchanging information with other nations bilaterally—for example, we introduced initiatives to Russia on that basis. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State signed a letter of intent with France covering exchanges of information on a range of topics, including the year 2000.
The question of nuclear safety has been raised. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Trident system has been checked very carefully as part of our overall programme. There are no computer failures, whether induced by the year 2000 problem or by any other cause, that could result in the accidental launch of a Trident missile. There has been some speculation in the

press about the operation of the Trident system, especially about the compliance of some American nuclear systems. We enjoy a close relationship with the US Department of Defense on year 2000 issues; we were notified by that Department in December 1998 that the mission-critical subsystems of the Trident II, or D5, strategic weapons systems as operated by the Royal Navy had been certified as Y2K compliant.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of support for civilian authorities, and others have raised that matter with my noble Friend Lord Gilbert, the Minister for Defence Procurement—who has specific responsibility for such matters—and with me. I can assure the House that our armed forces will, as usual, be ready to provide assistance to civil authorities, within the constraints of resources and other operational commitments.
As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence regards tackling the millennium bug as one of his highest priorities, second only to operations. The Ministry of Defence has the largest remedial programme in Government and I know that we are on track to complete it. We are at the forefront of work with our NATO allies and partners to ensure that the international dimension is properly dealt with. We are satisfied about the security of our nuclear deterrent, and we have put in place sensible plans to deal with international risk and any domestic civil emergency in respect of the millennium change.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past One o'clock.